9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 18th September, 2008 restricting the import of Artificial Marble priced below US$ 50 per Sq. Mtr. (CIF). The appellant's application for a relaxation of the above restriction in terms of Para 1.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy was initially rejected but was re-considered under the direction of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order dated. 6-4-2010 in Writ Petition No. 2120/2009 and the appellant was allowed transitional arrangement facility vide DGFT Order F.No. 01/89/180/70/AM09/PC-2 (A)/367 dated 18-6-2010 for import of balance contract quantity of 4,11,550 sq.mtr. within 15 months. By the time the appellant filed the impugned B/E under the DGFT's relaxation order dated 18-6-2010, the contract had already expired. As the declared value of the goods was significantly lower than the contemporaneous values, the adjudicating authority doubted the genuineness of the declared value and asked the appellant to provide further information. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the adjudicating authority rejected the transaction value and enhanced the assessable value to US$ 50 per sq.mtr. under Rule 4 of CVR, 2007. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the enha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Customs, Vizag - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 421 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-Op. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar-I - 2010 (252) E.L.T. 523 (Tri.- Kol.) 4. The learned Sr. Counsel Sri V.Sridharan on behalf of the appellant submitted that according to Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, declared value can be rejected when the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods. The Rule empowers the proper officer to seek further information and thereafter if the doubt persists, the transaction value can be rejected. First of all he submits that in this case, there was no reason to doubt the transaction value at all since the appellant had produced and registered a contract with the customs and had imported several consignments, which were cleared at the declared transaction value. He submits that quite often in commercial relationship, the parties of the contract are free to agree to more liberal terms that what was originally agreed to by them. If that be a position, even if the contention of the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Entry is USD 50. In the absence of any clear finding that the declared value was the invoice value and the transaction value, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the price of contemporaneous imports can be adopted. Therefore, he submits that on this ground also the stand taken by the Revenue is not correct. With regard to this contention, the original adjudicating authority simply stated that the submission of the appellants that importers had declared inflated prices cannot be accepted since no such case has been detected so far. He submits that this is also not a correct observation. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and gone through the case records. In this case, whatever be the defects in the contract and whatever be the contradictions between the Annexure and contract as submitted by the learned AR, the fact remains that the supplier agreed to supply the goods at the same price for the next two years after considering the circumstances under which the Indian importer had to stop importing marble. The letter is unambiguous and says clearly that the term of the contract is extended from two to four years in terms of Para 5.4. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re would be a breakup of each and every item under these headings at least when assessment of value under Valuation Rules is claimed. Another ground taken by the original adjudicating authority is that he has determined the price on the basis of contemporaneous imports. The original adjudicating authority has relied upon the Bills of Entry filed after the restriction were imposed and has taken a view that these are contemporaneous imports. The contract entered into by the parties in the present case itself says that price are varying from 16 USD to 21.5 USD whereas strangely under the Bills of Entry considered by the original adjudicating authority as submitted by the appellants there is no variation at all. Further, the submission that from the very next day of DGFT fixing the floor price, the importers started declaring 50 USD per sq. mt. has not been considered at all. Further, a statement in the order in original given by the original adjudicating authority indicates the value under two categories namely declared value and assessed value. The declared value can be different from the transaction value because the importer can declare higher prices than the normal transaction val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
