1996 (4) TMI 235 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of representation by the appellant in the appeal hearing.
2. Dispute regarding the assessable value of imported goods lost at sea and replaced by the foreign supplier at the same price.
3. Interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in determining the assessable value of goods.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the absence of representation by the appellant during the appeal hearing due to unforeseen circumstances. The appellant's counsel, now the Additional Solicitor General of India, requested an adjournment as they were unable to pursue the case. Despite the absence of representation, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the case due to its age and the concise nature of the facts involved.

2. The core issue in the appeal revolved around the assessable value of imported goods lost at sea and subsequently replaced by the foreign supplier at the same price. The appellant argued that the declared invoice value should have been accepted by the Customs authorities based on the contract between the appellant and the foreign supplier. The appellant contended that the Collector (Appeals) erred in not granting the benefit of the same value to the appellant, emphasizing that there was no undervaluation and the price was determined by a bilateral agreement between government agencies.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to determine the assessable value of the replaced goods. It was noted that the replacement goods were of a different model and not priced at the prevailing market rate at the time of supply. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessable value should be based on the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold in the normal course of international trade. In this case, the price applied by the Assistant Collector for similar goods from the same supplier was deemed appropriate, as it reflected the normal market price for comparable goods. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal based on the correct application of the law.

Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal provisions in determining the assessable value of imported goods, especially in cases involving replacement due to unforeseen circumstances, and emphasizes the significance of market prices in such assessments.