9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts [4.5 metric ton each] of Overlay Tissue Paper from Japan. Bills of entries dated 18-11-88 and 9-3-89 were filed for the clearance of these consignments before Bombay Customs. The unit price for the imports was 360 Yen per Kg. CIF, Bombay. Customs Authorities rejected the transaction value for the purpose of valuation on the ground that another party namely JAY, Bombay had imported from the same party Overlay Tissue Paper @ 530 Yen per kg. under invoice dated September 13, 1988. Under the impugned order, the consignments remain assessed on the basis of 530 Yen per Kg, and duty demand raised. The present appeals are directed against that enhancement of value and consequential duty demand. 3. The explanation of the appellant is that it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that since the Revenue has no case that the paper under import by the present importer is not the same as the paper supplied to M/s. Moti Polymers, the above explanation should be accepted and assessment made. The appellant has also filed another letter dated 6th October, 2004 from the supplier to the present appellant explaining the reasons for variation in price in the following terms :- It was great pleasure to have receive your contact, I refer to your fax dated 23rd September, 2004. We clarify the situation as under. RE : OVERLAY TISSUE PAPER Actually your purchases of Overlay Tissue paper vide our Invoice No. 2262 D dated 27 Jan. 1989 is correctly invoiced and does not have any und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o other importers, inasmuch as there is no evidence that the paper supplied to other parties are also of the same quality or from the same mill. 8. The law relating to valuation is clear. Transaction value would form assessable value and transaction value can be rejected only in the circumstances mentioned in the Customs Valuation Rules themselves. A mere variation of prices in two different transactions is no ground to reach a finding that transaction value is not commercial or unacceptable. In the present case, the variation in prices remains explained by the supplier in terms which are commercial. The appellant in the present case is a manufacturer of decorated laminated sheets and is a regular buyer of the goods. It has been explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
