2005 (1) TMI 498 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the value of imported Nickel Pellets.
- Discrepancy between the value declared by the appellant and the value enhanced by the Revenue based on Metal Bulletin for the month of March.
- Interpretation of the agreement between the appellant and the supplier for fixing the value of the goods based on LME cash settlement average price plus premium.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), challenging the enhancement of the value of imported Nickel Pellets by the Revenue based on the Metal Bulletin for the month of March. The appellant, a regular importer, had entered into an agreement with the supplier to fix the value of the goods based on the LME cash settlement average price for the previous month plus a premium of 570 USD per metric ton. The supplier had offered a price of 12660.75 USD per metric ton in December, which was based on the LME cash settlement average price for November plus the agreed premium. The appellant contended that the value declared was in accordance with the agreement and should be accepted. The Revenue, however, argued that the price of Nickel Pellets was rising according to the Metal Bulletin, justifying the enhancement to 16365 USD per metric ton.

The Tribunal examined the terms of the agreement between the appellant and the supplier, noting that the price was to be determined based on the LME cash settlement average price for the commencing month of shipment plus the agreed premium. The offer made by the supplier in December was based on the conditions specified in the agreement, and the goods were shipped accordingly. The appellant had declared the value of the goods as per the agreed price, and there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had paid a price different from the agreement or that the supplier's offer was not genuine. The Tribunal found that the enhancement of value by the Revenue, solely based on the Metal Bulletin, was not sustainable. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the enhancement and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the value declared for the imported Nickel Pellets in accordance with the agreement between the appellant and the supplier should be accepted, and the enhancement based on the Metal Bulletin was not justified. The decision highlights the importance of honoring contractual agreements in determining the value of imported goods and the need for thorough examination of evidence before making value adjustments based on external sources.