9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt - The impugned order has not followed the prescriptions laid down in the prevailing Rules as detailed in the decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd for enhancement of assessable value. Therefore, the upward revision is without authority of law. Duties of customs on the said import shall be levied on the declared value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL NO: C/353/2005 - ORDER NO: A/89533/16/CB. - Dated:- 31-8-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the appellant Shri K. Puggal, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: C J Mathew: The dispute before us, brought in appeal by M/s Panchmahal Steel Ltd, pertains to valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtation which, according to him was mandated in section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, to enhance the assessable value. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals),Mumbai - II vide impugned order-in-appeal no. 48/2005 (JNCH) dated 18 th February 2005 upheld the enhancement and reiterated the findings of the lower authority. The claim of appellant that contract had been registered with Customs House on 17 th November 1999 was not accepted on the ground that the contract itself preceded standing order no. 7495 dated 13 th December 1999 which prescribed registration of contract. 3. Learned Counsel for appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs [2000 (122) ELT 312 (SC)], Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of rule 5 to rule 8 of the Rules as mandated in rule 3(2). On the contrary, it is asserted that the judgement in re Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd prescribes that very action viz., the adoption of London Metal Exchange price prevailing as on the date of shipment because the contract price declaration for assessment was the London Metal Exchange price from a more distant past. We have perused the referred judgement and observe that the facts relating to the two disputes are vastly different; M/s Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd had claimed a price based on a long-term contract which was found to be far lower than the price at which another importer had obtained similar goods from the same supplier almost at the same time. Consequently, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not tenable. 8. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 312 (SC)] requires rejection of declared value with valid reasons to be a pre-requisite for sequential application of rule 5 to rule 8 before arriving at the assessable value. The difference in approach between the earlier and later Rules finds a significant place in the judgement viz., 11. It is true that the Rules are framed under? Section 14(1A) and are subject to the conditions in Section 14(1). Rule 4 is in fact directly relatable to Section 14(1). Both Section 14(1) and Rule 4 provide that the price paid by an importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce shall be taken to be the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Collector appears to have? proceeded on the law as it was prior to the 1988 Rules when special considerations on the basis of which a transaction was held not to be an ordinary sale in the course of international trade within the meaning of Section 14(1), had not been statutorily particularised. xxxxx 21. As already noted all these cases dealt with imports made prior to the coming into force of the Rules in 1988. Now the special considerations are detailed statutorily in Rule 4(2). 9. The impugned order has not followed the prescriptions laid down in the prevailing Rules as detailed in the decision in re Eicher Tractors Ltd for enhancement of assessable value. Therefore, the upward revision is without authority of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
