9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment based on London Metal Exchange (LME) prices vs. transaction values. 2. Contemporaneous imports at comparable prices. 3. Adjudication and appellate authorities adopting a different ground from the show cause notice. 4. Evidence of suppression of price in appellant's transactions. 5. Justification for selecting a specific price for assessment. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported copper scraps of "BIRCH" Varieties and initially, customs authorities accepted the prices based on transaction values for duty assessment. However, a notice was later issued, citing higher prices according to the London Metal Exchange (LME). The appellant contested the demand, arguing that the original assessments were correct and that LME prices should not be the basis for assessment. They also highlighted contemporaneous imports at comparable prices. 2. The Deputy Commissioner justified reliance on LME prices and confirmed the duty demand. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), presenting evidence of comparable values in other imports. Despite this, the Commissioner upheld the duty demand, mentioning contemporaneous imports at a higher price of US $1490 as a basis for the decision. 3. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that authorities cannot adopt a different ground from the show cause notice. They contended that there was no merit in the demand, especially considering the values of contemporaneous imports. 4. Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged that the demand was based on a different premise from the show cause notice. They found no evidence of price suppression in the appellant's transactions and noted fluctuating prices in the market. The Tribunal emphasized the acceptance of transaction value under the law, free from non-commercial influences, and highlighted the lack of material supporting a different assessment basis. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the order unsustainable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand. The decision emphasized the importance of considering fluctuating market prices, rejecting selective pricing for assessment, and upholding the transaction value principle in the absence of evidence indicating price suppression or non-commercial factors influencing the transactions.
|
