2023 (2) TMI 741 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Non-calcined petroleum coke - rejection of declared value - case of the department is that due to similarity in various factors, the import price of BGH Exim Limited needs to be followed and the price declared by the appellant should be rejected. Whether the value declared by the appellant in respect of import of Non-calcined petroleum coke as Rs. 2871.15 is correct or price of comparable import made by BGH Exim Limited @ Indian Rs. 3701.20 is correct? - whether the enhancement of value should be made taking the price of comparable imports? HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the entire issue in detail not only on the facts but also on the law point. There is an important difference between the facts of the present import and the import made by BGH Exim Limited in which there is only one consignment whereas in the respondent s case the contract was for a quantity of minimum 8 lakh Tonnes Per Annum for the period of 5 years and the respondent had imported 89249 MT of Non-calcined petroleum coke compared to the import quantity of 9400 MT of M/s BGH Exim Limited. On this difference itself, it can be construed that when there is a long term contract for lifting of a minimum 8 Lakh Tonnes Per Annum, obviously there will be substantial discount in the price. On this basis, it cannot be said that the comparable price of BGH Exim Limited should be taken for assessment of import of the appellant. It is observed that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has examined each and every aspect of the case and came to the conclusion that there is a vast difference between the nature of supplies made by BGH Exim Limited and the appellant in as much as there is a long term contract of the appellant with the suppliers and for the huge quantity of 9000 MT Per Annum. There is no infirmity in the findings of the impugned order - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the value declared by the appellant for the import of Non-calcined petroleum coke is correct, or the price of comparable import made by another company is correct.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Comparable Import Price: The Revenue's appeal questioned the declared value of the appellant's import compared to a similar import by another company. The Revenue argued for an enhancement in value based on the price of the comparable import. The Superintendent for the Revenue highlighted similarities in various factors between the imports, emphasizing that the cargoes were identical. The Revenue contended that the order in appeal suffered from factual infirmity and should be quashed.

2. Legal and Factual Considerations: The Respondent, represented by an advocate, defended the impugned order, stating it was passed after considering both factual and legal aspects. The Respondent argued that the value of imported goods should be the transaction value as per Section 14 of the relevant rules. The Respondent emphasized the differences in contract dates and quantities between the appellant and the other importer, asserting that the price of the other importer could not be applied.

3. Judicial Analysis and Findings: The Tribunal carefully analyzed the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. It noted the long-term contract and substantial quantity involved in the appellant's import compared to the other importer. The Tribunal found that the factors such as quantity, customer relationship, and payment terms influenced the pricing. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the transaction value based on the current provisions of the law.

4. Conclusion and Decision: The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, concluding that there was a significant difference between the imports in terms of quantity and contractual terms. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal directed that the declared value should be accepted as the transaction value for assessment, thereby resolving the issue in favor of the appellant.