1997 (10) TMI 213 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Appeal against the decision of the Assistant Collector of Customs.
3. Discrepancy in grade numbers of imported goods.
4. Comparison of contemporaneous imports for valuation purposes.
5. Admissibility of negotiated price as assessable value under Section 14(1) of Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the valuation of imported goods under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant imported Polypropylene grade LYONDELL 31S3A at an invoice price of US $950 PMT CIF, which was later enhanced to US $1,010 PMT CIF by the Assistant Collector based on a contemporaneous import of the same grade at a higher price.

2. The respondents appealed against the Assistant Collector's decision, and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the order, citing a discrepancy in the grade numbers of the imported goods. The Collector of Customs admitted the appeal, stating that the lower authority's decision was incorrect under the Valuation Rules, 1988, due to the difference in grade numbers between the imports.

3. The Collector of Customs filed an appeal against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), arguing that the grade numbers of the compared imports were identical, as evidenced by the Bill of Entry and Invoice. The appellant contended that the error could have been avoided if the records were reviewed before making a decision.

4. Upon careful consideration of the records, the Tribunal found that the quantity, country of origin, and grade of the compared imports were the same. The Tribunal concluded that there was a factual error in the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision and upheld the Department's enhancement of the assessable value to US $1,010, in line with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

5. The respondents, in their Cross Objection, argued that the negotiated price reflected in their invoice should be accepted as the assessable value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the enhancement by the Department was justified based on the provisions of the Customs Act, and accordingly allowed the appeal, restoring the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs.