9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the present appeal, it would be useful to briefly narrate the facts of the case. A contract was entered into between The Minerals Metals Trading Corporation of India (MMTC), hereinafter called the Buyer, and M/s. Empresa Minera Del Peru (MINERO-PERU), hereinafter called the Seller, and this contract is dated 6-3-1972. As per the terms of the contract, the seller was to supply to MMTC Electrolytic Copper Wire Bars corresponding to ASTM B5/43 specifications. The price clause is also relevant and is reproduced below :- * * * * The monthly average shall be taken as the price basis. The purchase price for each shipment is therefore to be understood as the monthly average of the Peruvian Producers P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 500.000 MT referred to earlier, the appraised value was enhanced to 630.76 per MT. This was done, as per the submissions made by the learned representative of the respondent, in accordance with the stipulations of the contract dated 6th March, 1972 i.e., with reference to the average price for the goods prevailing in September, 1974. Aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Collector, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs, which was dismissed and the order of Deputy Collector was upheld. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Collector, the appellants filed a revision application before the Central Government, which is now before us as an appeal. 4. Before appreciating the contentions of the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. It is pertinent to observe that in the same lot, which had arrived by the same vessel, two prices were shown in the invoice as they related to two different periods. So far as the higher price of 1,021.10 per MT for 499.923 MT was concerned, that was accepted by the Customs authorities, but regarding the quantity of 500.000 MT, the value as indicated in the invoice was not accepted, and instead a higher price was adopted. Shri Ohri, the learned representative of the respondent, pointed out that the lower authorities were justified in enhancing the value of the 500.000 MT because under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 the price has to be as prevailing at the time and place of importation. He further submitted that the price for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract, the validity of which cannot be questioned. 7. Shri Ohri has drawn our attention to Tribunal s decision reported vide 1983 ECR 156 D(CEGAT) M/s. Minerals Metals Trading Corporation (India) Ltd., Madras v. The Collector of Customs, Madras = 1983 E.L.T. 364 (CEGAT). The terms of the contract in each case have to be seen for their proper effect; and the facts of the contract with M/s. Tekassulf Inc., New York do not apply to the present case. 8. From the above discussion, we are satisfied that the authorities below were not justified in enhancing the assessable value of 500.000 MT of goods, which had come in the bigger lot. The terms of the contract have to be meticulously applied when the price had been rightly shown in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
