9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract was entered into through M/s. Rasex Traders, Mumbai, who acted as broker on behalf of the Cargill (India) Pvt. Ltd. The terms of payment, as per the said contract, were under irrecoverable L/C payable at site upon the presentation of documents. The contract was confirmed by the appellants vide their letter dated 26-4-99 and cheque for an amount of Rs. 16,77,000/- as security was sent. 3. As per the appellants, they were not in a position to open the L/C immediately in favour of the Cargil (I) Pvt. Ltd., and, as such, they brought Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd., who agreed to open the L/C in favour of Cargil on behalf of the appellant, subject to the appellants paying Wajilam interest at the prime bank rate for a period not exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against them enhancing the value, confirming the differential duty and imposing penalties of varying on the appellants. The said order is impugned before us. 7. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Naresh Thacker, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri C. Lama, ld. SDR for the Revenue, we find that at the time of filing Bill of Entry, the appellant's produced on record, invoice dated 24-5-99 of M/s. Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd., certificate of origin issued by Thai Chamber of Commerce, Certificate of weight, quality and packing, packing list, Bills of Lading, etc. The Adjudicating authority has enhanced the value primarily on the ground that another import of identical goods M/s. Vishal Exports, Ahmedabad, had decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... howing upward trend, which explains the Vishal Exports imported their goods as their contract was dated 13-5-99. 9. After considering the said submissions and going through the impugned order, we find that the basis for enhancing the assessable value of the sugar by the adjudicating authority is the fact that the goods of Vishal Exports arrived in the same vessel as those of the appellants and from the same manufacturer. We find that apart from the fact that the quantity imported by Vishal Export was only to the tune of 3850 MTs, whereas the quantity imported by the appellants was 9150 MTs, which is more than twice the quantity imported by Vishal Exports. Further more, the contract entered by the appellants was of 23-4-99, whereas the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. (India) v. CC, Mumbai, reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 904 (Tri.-Mumbai) relied upon by the ld. DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case, where the commodity involved was open to fluctuation of prices on day to day basis in contrast to stainless steel coils involved in the Tribunal s decision. In fact it is settled law that the prices at the time of contract is relevant and any subsequent price increased at the time of shipment or importation is not relevant. Reference in this case may be made to the Hon ble Calcutta High Court s decision in the case of Sneha Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 43. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the invoice price is not the correct prices actually paid by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
