2009 (6) TMI 357 - AT - Customs

The issue involved is valuation of Styrene monomer (Petroleum product), imported by the respondents from Malaysia. - The Revenue proceeded to enhance the value on the basis of some other contemporaneous importers and accordingly proceedings were initiated and the value was enhanced - Commissioner (Appeals) took into consideration the fact that during the relevant period, prices in the PLATT Bulletin were more or less equivalent to the prices during the time when the contract was entered into by the respondents, and hence respondents are entitled to benefit - The Revenue has not been able to rebut the findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) and evidences taken into consideration by him. We find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), inasmuch as the price declared by the respondents was in consonance with the prices quoted in the PLATTS. We find no merits in the Revenue s appeals and accordingly, reject the same.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of Styrene monomer (Petroleum product) imported from Malaysia

In this case, the main issue revolves around the valuation of Styrene monomer, a Petroleum product, imported by the respondents from Malaysia. The declared value by different importers varied, with M/s. Bhansali Engg. Polymers declaring US$ 900 per MT and M/s. C.J. Shah & Co. declaring US$ 1010 per MT. The Revenue sought to enhance the value based on other importers, setting it at US$ 947 per MT and US$ 1330 per MT for the respective importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the prices during the relevant period and contemporaneous imports, ultimately siding with the respondents. The Revenue challenged this decision, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the department's doubt regarding the accuracy of the transaction value due to higher prices from the same country of origin. However, the respondents provided evidence to support their declared value, including commercial invoices and PLATTS Asian Petrochemicals data showing fluctuating prices during the relevant period. The Commissioner found the evidence presented by the respondents to be sufficient in justifying the declared value, concluding that the doubts raised by the department were not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the Revenue failed to rebut the findings and evidence considered by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found no issues with the Commissioner's order, as the declared prices aligned with those quoted in PLATTS, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeals.