9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of similar/identical goods during the said period @ US $ 555 PMT and US $ 500 PMT CIF from M/s. ICC Chemical Corporation, USA. It was also fond that M/s. IPCL, Vadodara and some other importers had imported identical goods @ US $ 505 PMT C F during the proximate period. In the light of the above fact, the importers were requested to supply the contract in original, the bank attested invoices, prevailing market prices of inputs as per MOPAG and details of price working as per their contract formula etc. vide Deptt. letter dated 25-9-2000 so as to finalize all the provisional assessments. Since the importers failed to supply these documents, a reminder dated 6-11-2000 was issued but then again they failed to respond. Therefore, a show cause notice with details of proposed enhancement as per Annexure - A was issued to the importers asking them to reply and appear for hearing on any working day between 20-1-01 to 25-1-01 vide Deptt. letter dated 22-12-2000 but they failed to respond or appear for hearing till 16-3-01. The adjudication has resulted finalization of assessment of all the 16 consignments of normal paraffin on the enhanced value of US $ 500 PMT resulting in consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special circumstances, price of imported goods as declared is to be accepted and also noting that there is no material on record to show that the declared value was unrealistic and remarkably low as compared to the market price and value of contemporary imports, and further noting that the pricing formula of the goods has not been disputed. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of argument, the learned DR appearing for the revenue has fairly admitted that the pricing formula filed by the respondent has not been disputed by the department. On the insistence of the department, the respondent has filed a statement showing consignment of N. Paraffin cleared during August 1997 to June 1999. But a mere look at the statement shows that the respondent has imported the product in question ranging from US $ 350 PMT to US $ 555 PMT. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the statement clearly shows that the respondent has imported the product in question at the lowest at US $ 350 PMT to US $ 555 PMT during the period in question. This clearly establishes that the rate of US $ 372 PMT to US $ 445 PMT declared by them is fully justified as the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot ascertain the transaction value with mathematical precision. No such allegation has been made. The contractual invoice of the appellant cannot be rejected. (ii) C.C., Mumbai v. Haidery Tins - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 96 (T) - held - It is to be noted that the goods under consideration were imported from Australia whereas the goods that the Assistant Commissioner has considered were imported from countries in Europe. These goods were therefore, neither identical goods specified in Rule 5 nor similar goods specified in Rule 6. The transaction price is not absurdly unrealistic price. The quantities totally imported by the appellant in nine consignments were in pursuance of one order and is of larger quantity of 63 tons whereas the quantity of 21 tones was imported in the order relied on. The substantial difference in quantity would have prompted a reduction in the price by taking the lowest value of US $ 380. (iii) Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. C.C., Visakhapatnam - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 68 (T) - held - Customs authorities while assessing value of imported goods not bound by the figure mentioned in the invoice and can rely on contemporaneous evidence. In the present case, revenue had shown t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cannot adopt the higher value of other countries from a different supplier for a different quality, quantity etc. in the absence of special circumstances statutorily required. That cannot be the basis for loading higher value in the present case. The reliance placed by the learned DR on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) is not relevant as the facts involved in this case are totally different than the facts involved in the said case. As in the said case, the comparable goods were similar goods from the same supplier, whereas, in the present case, comparison made with goods of different country of origin and different supplier. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable in this case. Besides, the Hon ble Supreme Court has considered large quantity of import and quantity discount allowed by the Department. The respondents claim that even if the quantity discount is given to them for large quantity, there would be no difference in the value declared by them and the enhanced value. It is relevant to mention that in the present case, the price is not a fixed price, the price is a variable price on quarterly basis dependin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
