TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d four bills of entry for clearance of metal scrap and the same were assessed at declared invoice value. The goods were examined and cleared after payment of duty. However, subsequently, it revealed that the goods were assessed at lower price inasmuch as LME prices prevalent on the date of import were more than the price declared by the appellants. Accordingly, four show cause notices, all dated 11-1-1999 in respect of four bills of entry, were served on the appellants vide which the differential duty demand was raised from them. They contested the correctness of those show cause notices and maintained that the price declared by them in the bills of entry of the imported goods, was correct and that the LME is in US $ which is valid for non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import of the goods in question and even the contemporaneous imports of those goods by other exporters showed that the price declared by the appellants was much lower than the actual prevalent price of contemporaneous imports. Therefore, the transaction price has been rightly rejected by the Customs authorities. He has sought support to his argument from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. v. CC, Bombay, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 292 (S.C.). 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. 6. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported Metal Scrap. They filed four bills of entry as detailed in the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner. The goods imported by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and place of importation and exportation in the cases of international trade. In this judgment, however, the provisions of Rules 3(i), 4(1) and 4(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 did not come up for consideration before the Apex Court as it appears that the import in that case was much earlier to the enforcement of these Rules which came into operation on 16th August, 1988. 8. However, the said Rules i.e. Rules 3(i) and 4(1) had been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd., supra, while dealing with a dispute regarding the valuation of the imported goods. In para 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court had observed that these Rules together cast mandate on the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills of entries produced by the appellants had not been taken note of or referred/discussed in the impugned order. The provisions of Rules 3(i), 4(1) and 4(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 which were applicable to the case of the appellants had not been referred to or discussed by both the authorities. These Rules have been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai, supra, in detail. Therefore, the impugned order having been not passed after taking due note of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court for rejecting the transaction value of the imported goods in the above referred two cases, deserves to be set aside and the matter must be sent back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|