9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of declared contract invoice price as the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 2. Validity of demand Show Cause Notice issued for the short levy of duty based on prices from standard international journals (PLATT for South East Asia). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Acceptance of Declared Contract Invoice Price: The Revenue contended that the declared contract invoice price for HDPE (Film Grade) was lower than the prices observed in international journals like PLATT and those accepted at Chennai Port. They argued that there was no valid reason provided by the importer for this discrepancy and that the declared prices were not investigated or verified. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the lower authorities' decision to load the price based on international journal prices was not sustainable. The Commissioner emphasized that the transaction value should be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India, as per Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Commissioner cited previous Tribunal decisions, including PAC Systems and Sippy Pramod Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd., which upheld that transaction value should be accepted unless it falls under specific exceptions. The Commissioner noted that the appellants provided evidence of similar imports at various ports in India at prices even lower than their declared price. The Commissioner concluded that the declared price was genuine, as the appellants had imported the goods directly from the manufacturer under a contract and opened a Letter of Credit. The adjudicating authority's reliance on prices at Chennai Port and other bills of entry was deemed not comparable due to differences in quantity and other factors. 2. Validity of Demand Show Cause Notice: The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice for the short levy of duty based on higher prices observed in international journals. They argued that the prices quoted in these journals were indicative of the general trend in the international market and should be considered for valuation. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this argument, stating that journal prices are only indicative and not the actual prices at which contracts are entered and Letters of Credit are opened. The Commissioner highlighted that the appellants' declared prices were consistent with the international prices prevailing at the time of their contract, as evidenced by specific PLATT prices for the relevant dates. The Commissioner also noted that the adjudicating authority's enhancement of the price by only 5.18% was not justified, given the appellants' substantial quantity and break bulk cargo, which could result in lower prices due to quantity discounts and freight advantages. The Commissioner emphasized that the appellants' declared prices were genuine and should not be loaded. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, noting that the Supreme Court had not upheld the Commissioner's appeal against the Tribunal's decision on the inapplicability of PLATT prices in similar cases. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the declared contract invoice price should be accepted as the transaction value and that the demand Show Cause Notice based on international journal prices was not valid. The Tribunal emphasized that transaction value should be accepted unless it falls under specific exceptions and that journal prices are only indicative and not actual contract prices.
|
