2009 (10) TMI 733 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - import of two consignments of Antimony - case of appellant is that the price difference was on account of quantity difference - Held that - the quantity difference was a fact borne on record and it was open to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to consider this fact when pointed out by the appellant - the unit price of USD 1430 PMT declared by the contemporaneous importer in respect of 5 MTs of Antimony cannot be cited in support of a proposal for rejecting the transaction value in the present case. The quantity discounts are a part of the recognized international trade practice - the declared values in this case are to be accepted and the goods to be assessed accordingly - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation dispute involving imported goods, application of Customs Valuation Rules, rejection of price quotations, consideration of quantity difference in pricing.

Valuation Dispute:
The judgment involves a valuation dispute concerning the imported goods, Antimony, where the appellant imported two consignments and declared unit prices. The Customs authorities proposed to enhance the assessable value based on the contemporaneous import price of identical goods by another party. The original authority enhanced the assessable value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, rejecting the price quotations of identical goods imported by different parties during a specific period. The first appellate authority upheld the decision, leading to the present appeal.

Application of Customs Valuation Rules:
The appellant argued that the unit prices declared should be accepted under Section 14 of the Customs Act, and the transaction value could not be rejected without specific reasons as per Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC in support of their argument. The lower authorities rejected these arguments, leading to their reiteration in the present appeal.

Rejection of Price Quotations:
The appellant imported a total quantity of 40 MTs of Antimony from different suppliers of the same country of origin. They argued that the unit prices declared were agreed upon with the suppliers and should be accepted as transaction values. The lower authorities rejected this argument, leading to the appeal. The appellant further contended that the unit price difference was due to the quantity difference, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of being a belated plea. However, the Tribunal considered this fact and concluded that the quantity difference influenced the unit price, as quantity discounts are common in international trade.

Consideration of Quantity Difference in Pricing:
The Tribunal noted that the unit price declared by another importer for a smaller quantity of Antimony could not be used to reject the transaction value declared by the appellant for a larger quantity. Recognizing the impact of quantity on pricing in international trade, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing the assessment of goods based on the declared values.