2004 (4) TMI 392 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of transaction value and assessment under Rule 6.
2. Comparison of PLATT's prices for imported goods.
3. Discrepancy in grades of HDPE granules.
4. Acceptance of assessable value based on international trade practice.

Issue 1: Rejection of transaction value and assessment under Rule 6
The appeal stemmed from the rejection of the transaction value by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the subsequent assessment of the goods under Rule 6. The imported HDPE granules were confiscated at a value of US $600 CIF, Chennai, on the basis that similar goods were imported around the same time.

Issue 2: Comparison of PLATT's prices for imported goods
The appellant argued that the PLATT's prices for the imported item were significantly lower than those adopted by the Department. They contended that the goods compared were of a different grade (EMDA 6200) compared to the imported grade (EGDA 6888) and that the prices were not comparable. The appellant cited previous judgments where the use of PLATT's prices to enhance assessable value was overturned.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in grades of HDPE granules
Upon careful consideration, it was found that the appellant had declared the price of EMDA 6200 quality of HDPE granules, while the Department referred to a different grade, EGDA 6888. The Tribunal noted that PLATT's price list indicated different prices for different grades of HDPE, making the comparison invalid. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments that emphasized the inability to rely on PLATT's prices for determining transaction value.

Issue 4: Acceptance of assessable value based on international trade practice
The JCDR argued that the assessable value should be accepted based on international trade practice, citing a judgment where the price quoted in PLATT's publication was upheld in the absence of rebuttal by the Revenue. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for comparable grades and prices for a valid comparison. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's enhancement of the price was not sustainable based on previous judgments and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of comparing identical or similar goods with consistent grades and prices for assessing the transaction value. The judgment underscored the limitations of relying solely on PLATT's prices and emphasized the need for a valid basis for enhancing assessable value in customs cases.