1989 (4) TMI 175 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in invoice price based on different price lists.
2. Applicability of price list for valuation of imported goods.
3. Distinction between negotiated price and ordinary selling price for valuation under Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the valuation of imported goods based on different price lists. The appellants imported ZKL Bearings at a specific price, but the department argued that the order was placed after the applicable price list changed. The Assistant Collector enhanced the invoice value based on a revised price list used by another importer. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The appellants contended that the decision was flawed as it was based on the price at which another entity imported goods against a different type of license. They argued that the negotiated price by the Projects and Equipment Corporation of India (P.E.C.) was applicable from a later date than assumed by the department. Additionally, they cited a previous order by the Appellate Collector supporting their stance that bulk imports should be treated differently from individual importers.

The Appellate Collector's rationale was based on the Customs Act, emphasizing that the value of goods for customs duty purposes should reflect the ordinary selling price in international trade. The Collector highlighted that the negotiated price by the P.E.C. for bulk quantities should not be equated with individual importers' prices. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support the interpretation that the ordinary selling price, not the negotiated price, should be the basis for valuation under the Customs Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order appealed against, emphasizing that the price fixed by the suppliers for all orders after a specific date should be the basis for valuation. The negotiated price by the P.E.C., though genuine, was deemed irrelevant for valuation purposes under the Customs Act. The decision reiterated the importance of considering the ordinary selling price for valuation, regardless of the genuineness of the negotiated price.