9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as under :- 1.1 On 18-1-1983, the appellants placed an order upon the foreign supplier, M/s. N.V. Nickel Refining Trading (NIREF in shorts) for the import of Nickel Oxide Sinter-76 Nodular (about 200 M.T. of Nickel contents) at the price of US $1.6017 per lb. Nickel content C F Calcutta/Haldia. The first shipment under the said contract at the price of US $ 1.6017 per lb. Nickel content was made by the foreign supplier on 3-2-1983. Due to downward trend in the price of the said goods in international market, during visit of NIREF s representative to India in February, 1983, it was agreed that the remaining goods under the said contract would be shipped at the price of US $ 1.5058 per lb. Nickel content. This was also subsequently fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the price of US $ 1.585 per lb. (vi) Certificate given by M/s. NIREF regarding international price of the goods in question during the relevant period; (vii) Letter dated 20-4-1983 from NIREF as regards the price of US $ 1.5058 per lb. of the second consignment; (viii) Certificate given by M/s. Metdist regarding international price of the said goods during the relevant period; 1.4 The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta thereafter, passed Order dated 21-6-1996. In the said Order, the Commissioner held that the imports made by M/s. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. under invoice No. 1104 dated 21-3-1983 at the price of US $ 1.585 per lb. from the same very foreign supplier, can be said to be an identical one compared to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the foreign supplier, were influenced by any commercial consideration or the relation between the two. Reliance placed by the appellants on the various decisions of the Tribunal - for example - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1998 (25) RLT (1); 1999 (105) E.L.T. 637 (T) = 1999 (31) RLT 353; 1999 (107) E.L.T. 329 - is appropriate. The gist of all these decisions is that in the absence of any doubt of transaction value, the same should not be dismissed lightly. Similarly, we find force in the appellants contention that only one day s LME Price has been picked up by the adjudicating authority, whereas there was lot of variations in the LME prices also on the various dates. In view of the foregoing discussions, we set aside the impugned Order and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
