9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Dispute over assessable value of Acrylonitrile imported by the appellant at declared value, rejection of appeal against order enhancing price, Commissioner (Appeals) decision, validity of transaction value, reliance on international journal prices.
Summary: The dispute in the present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD revolves around the assessable value of Acrylonitrile imported by the appellant at a declared value of US $ 1143 per MT. The original adjudicating authority increased the value to US $ 1187 per MT based on contemporaneous imports and prices from the international journal ICIS-LOR. The appeal against this order, which confirmed a differential duty of Rs. 1,38,724/-, was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that they are regular importers of the product, used as raw material, and that doubts raised by the Revenue on previous imports were overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of evidence to question the correctness of the transaction value. The appellant maintained that the prices reflected in the invoices and contract were accurate, based on commercial considerations, and not influenced by international journal prices or any improper dealings. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, citing doubts regarding the transaction value and the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to dispel those doubts. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's advocate, emphasizing that international journal prices are not definitive and that transaction value can only be rejected under specific circumstances outlined in the Customs Valuation Rules. Relying on precedent cases, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to reject the transaction value in this case and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
|
