Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 533 - CESTAT BANGALOREValuation of imported goods - Methyl Phenyl Acetylene - Availability of contemporaneous import or not - nature of goods and country of origin of impugned as well as contemporaneous goods - HELD THAT:- The appellant categorically submit that the goods imported by the appellant cannot be considered as at par with the import made by the importer M/s. Dimesco Footcare(India) Pvt. Ltd. as alleged. Since times of import, quantity and country of import are different. As held by Apex court in the matter of BASANT INDUSTRIES VERSUS ADDL. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY [1995 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT], a mere comparison of two invoices without anything more, it may not be correct to proceed on the premise that there is undervaluation. The relationship between the supplier and importer has also to be kept in mind because it is a matter of common knowledge that a price which is offered by a supplier to an old customer may be different from a price which the same supplier offers to a totally new customer. Similarly, as held by Apex court in the matter of Mirah Exports Pvt Ltd [1998 (2) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT] in the business world, considerations of relationship with the customer are also a relevant factor and the price offered by a supplier to an old customer may be different from a price which the same supplier offers to a totally new customer. Thus it is not unusual for a foreign supplier to give a higher discount to an importer who is importing a much larger quantity and merely because such a discount has been given by the supplier it cannot be said that there has been any undervaluation in the invoice. There are no reason to confirm the demand of the differential duty on appellant. Hence the appeal is allowed.
|