9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on prevailing price at the time and place of importation.
Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal arising from an Order-in-Appeal dated 15-9-1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, regarding the valuation of imported 50 m.t. Electrolytic Copper Wire-bars. The Customs authorities loaded the declared invoice value for assessment purposes, leading to a dispute over the deemed value of the goods at the time and place of importation under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The Assistant Collector rejected the declared value based on the contract and deemed the value of the copper wire-bars to be higher, considering other importers' bills of entry showing varying prices. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of third-party price quotes from the appellant. The appellant requested the case to be decided on merits before the Tribunal. 3. The Departmental Representative argued that valuation under Section 14 aims to adopt the prevailing price at the time and place of importation, citing other importers' varying prices for similar goods during the relevant period. The Assistant Collector's decision was deemed in line with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, justifying the adoption of the lowest price among the range of prices filed during the period. 4. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted the appellant's argument that their contract was based on day-to-day spot prices, different from other importers who relied on monthly average prices. Citing judgments in similar cases, the appellant contended that the contract price should be accepted for assessment unless there are suspicious circumstances. The fluctuation in prices between the contract date and shipment date was highlighted, supporting the genuineness of the contract price. 5. After careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the fluctuating prices of the goods based on day-to-day and monthly trading, emphasizing the genuineness of the appellant's contract price. The Tribunal held that as long as there are no challenges to the contract's genuineness, Section 14(1)(a) should be followed without deviation. The Tribunal concluded that the contractual invoice price of the appellant should be accepted, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The appeal was ultimately allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
