1996 (3) TMI 280 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the Order-in-appeal dated 23-8-1988 regarding the undervaluation of imported goods.
2. Acceptance of contracted price by the department for previous consignments and its rejection for subsequent consignments.
3. Rejection of contracted price under Section 14(1)(a) and valuation of goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 1963.
4. Discrepancy in valuation based on invoices from different countries and quantity differences.
5. Interpretation of contractual terms, including delivery schedule and payment conditions.
6. Comparison of invoice values and reliance on global price trends.
7. Application of legal precedents and judgments to determine under-valuation and acceptance of contracted price.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed the Order-in-appeal dated 23-8-1988, arguing that the imported M.S. Defective Coils were undervalued. The Bombay High Court allowed bonding of goods without duty payment pending importer's response to show cause notice.
2. Revenue accepted contracted price for previous consignments but rejected it for subsequent ones, citing lack of clarity in delivery schedule and contract terms, leading to the appeal.
3. The Assistant Collector rejected the contracted price under Section 14(1)(a) and valued goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the contracted price, highlighting factual inaccuracies in the rejection.
4. Discrepancies in valuation arose from reliance on invoices from different countries with varying quantities, leading to a debate on comparability and validity of the contracted price.
5. The interpretation of contractual terms, including delivery schedule and payment conditions, was crucial in determining the validity of the contracted price, with the Collector (Appeals) finding factual errors in the rejection.
6. The comparison of invoice values and reliance on global price trends were pivotal in assessing the validity of the contracted price, with arguments on under-valuation and fluctuating prices.
7. Legal precedents, including judgments like Poonam Plastic Industries and Basant Industries, were applied to determine under-valuation and acceptance of contracted price, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal based on established legal principles and factual analysis.