9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2006. 2. Shri Uday Joshi (Advocate) appearing on behalf of appellants argued that Adjudicating Authorities has enhanced the invoice value from US $ 1085 PMT to US $ 1350 PMT based on the contemporary imports made by other importers at the time of imports made by the appellants. Learned Advocate also argued that transaction value cannot be rejected in their case as the contract between the appellants and the supplier was executed on 13.08.2004. It was also his case that appellant Century Laminating Co. Ltd. is a regular importer of phenol from the same supplier. Learned Advocate relied upon one order No. 287/2005 dated 25.07.2005 passed by the same appellate authority in the case of M/s C. J. Shah & Co. where invoice value @ US $ 1095 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her hand Revenue is of the argument that there is an abnormal reduction in the invoice price of the appellants as compare to the ordinary competitive price shown by the contemporary imports. In this regard it is observed that Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 has to be accepted if the transaction values satisfy the criteria mentioned in Proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. As per this Proviso the sale should not involve an abnormal discount or reduction from the ordinary competitive price. In the present appeals appellants imported goods @ US $ 1085 PMT as against US $ 1350 PMT shown by contemporary imports during the same period for similar quantities. This represents a difference of more than 25% difference in inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs (Appeals) dated 25/07/2005 passed in the case of M/s. C.J. Shah & Company. M/s. C.J. Shah and Company with whom the present appellant is claiming parity has produced ample evidence to show the international price prevailing on date of contract, I.e. on 15/07/2004 and also produced the copy of the contract between the buyer and the seller and the contractual price stated thererin which is US $ 1095/- PMT was consistent with the international price published in reputed journals such as ICIS LOR. Considering the fact that the international price prevailing on the date of the contract in the case of C.J. Shah & Company and the fact that in the case of C.J. Shah & Co., the invoice dated 17/07/2004 was backed by a firm contract dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to show the international price consistent with the invoice presented by them along with the imported goods. They have also not produced any evidence to show that lesser price was charged from them by the same supplier on any commercial consideration such as quantity, quality or negotiation. 5.1 From the above facts recorded by the first appellate authority international prices of PHENOL were increased after 30.07.2004 and were ranging between US $ 1256 PMT to 1322 PMT FOB. The contract entered between the appellants and the supplier is after 30.07.2004, therefore, higher price of US $ 1350 PMT CIF, at which same goods were imported by contemporaries in the same vessel, was justified for payment of duty and transaction value has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot reflect the correct price, it would be justified in rejecting the invoice price and determine the transaction value in accordance with the procedure laid down in CVR, 1988. It needs little emphasis that before rejecting the transaction value declared by the importer as incorrect or unacceptable, the revenue has to bring on record cogent material to show that contemporaneous imports, which obviously would include the date of contract, the time and place of importation, etc., were at a higher price. In such a situation, Rule 10A of CVR, 1988 contemplates that where the department has a reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value, it may ask the importer to provide further explanation to the effect that the declared value re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
