9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.05 in terms of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules read with Section 14(1)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps at their various factories in Maharashtra State. From time to time the appellant imports Polybutadiene Synthetic Rubber for the manufacture of tyres. The said synthetic rubber are petro-based products. The appellant entered into contracts with M/s. Taiwan Synthetic Rubber Corporation, Taiwan through their agents M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan for the import of the said item Polybutadiene rubber. The appellant placed on 18-4-1991 two purchase orders Nos. IMP/RM/BHP/48 50 for 100.8 M.T. each at the unit price of U.S.$ 1100 per M.T. CIF Bombay. The order is at pages ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, they could he held as contemporaneous. He confirmed the order. Hence the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel Shri D.B. Shroff, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that when the goods arrived on 12-6-1991 and 20-9-1991 there was a query memo which stated as follows:- Unit price of the goods under reference is US $ 1100 per M.T. Price of the same item imported by other importers is found to be @ US $ 1205 and US $ 1203 PMT. Please explain the discrepancy in price. Also state whether you want PH or SCN. He therefore stated that the appellant waived the SCN and personal hearing was asked for. In the personal hearing, the appellant had explained GATT Valuation Rules. He stated that in terms of the Clause 2(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces started sliding and he said the comparable price with that of M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. purchased sought to be relied on by the department is wrong. He stated that the order of the M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. was much earlier in point of time. He stated that in the Bill of Entry No. 3374, dated 13-6-1991 the quantity ordered was 267 M.T. and the purchase order was dated 23-11-1990. The price was at 12.5 PMT and the date of shipment was May, 1991. In the other Bill of Entry, viz. 3375, dated 13-6-1991 the purchase order was dated 8-2-1991. The quantity ordered was 214.200 MT and the price was 12.3 PMT and the shipment was on 8-5-1991. He argued that in the instant case the quantity ordered was only on 16-4-1991 much later in point of time. He spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, 1991 : US $ 466/MT February, 1991 : US $ 429/MT March, 1991 : US $ 374/MT April, 1991 : US $ 308/MT May, 1991 : US $ 305/MT" He specifically stated that in view of this, when there is an everchanging price of the value of Butadiene Monomer when compared to November, 1990 and May, 1991 international price bound to change. He also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in Gold Plast India (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1991 (53) E.L.T. 147. 4. As against this Shri C.P. Rao the ld. DR while reiterating the orders passed by the authorities, stated that the reasons for difference in price have not been made by the manufacturer but only by the agent. This shows that there is some suspicion. He also stated that the letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Mitsubishi Corporation specifically states that the price of Butadiene Monomer has started falling in April, 1991 and from the statement extracted in the argument portion of Shri Shroff would definitely show from November, 1990 onwards the price has been sliding 580 M.T. to 305 M.T. in May, 1991. The order has been placed in this case in April, 1991. Therefore it is not unreasonable to hold that there is a slide in prices. Moreover the quantity between these two purchases, viz. M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. and M/s. Ceat Ltd. are entirely different. The department did not show that there was no slide in the value of the price of Butadiene Monomer which is a raw material for production of the goods under consideration. The manufacturer s certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Plast (India) (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1991 (53) E.L.T. 147 had held that on the facts and circumstances of the case the value should be accepted as declared in terms of Section 14(1)(A) read with Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. In this case also on the basis of the evidence we are of the considered view that the price submitted for the purchase made by M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. cannot be accepted as firstly the period was entirely different and secondly the quantity differs substantially and also there were unusual circumstances prevailing in international market, namely Gulf prices. The instant import has been made at a time when the prices of the products have come down heavily from 580/MT to 308/MT which has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
