9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder was placed by the Importer after 1-1-1977, when price list No. 779 was applicable. However, the invoice price had been worked out on the basis of price list No. 759. In price list No. 759, the price of the bearing in question i.e. type 3309 D has been quoted as Rs. 57.90 each. This is as against the price for the same type quoted in price list No. 779 as Rs. 66.50p. each. There is no dispute that the order was placed by the Importers on 19-4-1978. While making the assessment, the Assistant Collector (Appraisement) observed that another Importer of identical goods from the same supplier had obtained the goods which were shipped on 30-3-1978 at the revised price as per price list No. 779. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector ordered that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that since a similar import had been made prior to 20-6-1978, when price list No. 779 became effective with reference to the price negotiated by P.E.C., therefore, assessment should be made as per price list No. 759 read with subsequent corrections. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that this is a case of import of bulk quantities and it cannot be equated with the price negotiated by an individual importer. 6. The learned SDR, Shri Nair reiterates the view taken in the order of the lower authority. 7. The view taken by the Appellate Collector of Customs in this case may be considered in his own words which are re-produced below. He says : As per Section 14(l)(a) of Customs Act, 1962, only that price is acceptable at w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers so as to call for a quantity discount. Indents were made by individual buyers (importers) and so the price applicable to individual buyers without any connection with the P.E.C. has to be accepted under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not that a single buyer (M/s. Balpahar Refractories Ltd. paid only that price which is applicable for all orders booked after 1-1-1977." 8. We find that the whole effort of appellants is to stress the point that the price at which they made the imports was a genuine one and that it has been negotiated by the P.E.C. against the licence issued to them. They submit that the price at which M/s. Balpahar Refractories Ltd. made their imports against a licence for actual user was not, therefore, rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay High Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Glaxo Laboratories -1984 (17) E.L.T. 21984, the department has to take into account the normal international price for purposes of customs duty and not necessarily the agreed or negotiated price. In Bird and Company v. Kalyan Kumar - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 70 (Cal.) = I.L.R. 1976 (II) Calcutta 202, it was held that what is to be taken as the basis of valuation is the price at which such or like goods arc ordinarily sold at the time and place of exportation and not the contract price of sale in question. The same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Babcock Venkateshwars Hatcheries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 335. 9. When the law provides that the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
