9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price originally decided for the coal having the specified quality standards. However the quality analysis report clearly held that the coal supplied does not fulfil the specification as laid down in the purchase order. The said fact nowhere disputed by the revenue in the present matter. We may, however, hasten to add that in such a situation the genuineness and the necessity of reduction in the price are required to be scrutinised very carefully. In the instant case, the Ld. Commissioner (appeals) has not examined the genuineness of the price reduction, and has proceeded to reject the appeal of the appellant. It is, however, added that the Commissioner (Appeals) did properly examine the cogency of the reasons for price reduction though he was not convinced to accept the same. Thus, if there was a genuine cause for reduction in the price of the imported goods and the seller was also convinced that there is need for reduction in the price earlier agreed and accordingly accepted the lower price negotiated between the seller and the importer. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 also talks of the price which is either paid or payable to the seller. In such situation it will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld between the appellant and the supplier s representative on 07.01.2009 and that the payment was made at the re-negotiated price resulting into reduction in the assessable value. The bills of entry were finally assessed at the declared invoice price USD 154.34 PMT considering the final invoice price. Being aggrieved with assessment of Bills of Entries, the Appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order-in-appeal upheld the assessment order and rejected the appeals of the appellant. Hence , the present appeals before us. 3. Shri Saurabh Mathur Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the valuation of goods for the purpose of paying customs duty has to be done in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly the transaction value of such goods has to be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation. In the present case, the price actually payable for the goods at the time and place of importation is the price of USD 86 PMT because the original price of USD 154.34 PMT was for the coal having the specified quality standard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the coal supplied was not of the specified ISO quality standards and was different form the coal intended to be purchased i.e. it has been agreed that the goods actually imported were different from the goods intended for. He has also not disputed the fact of price reduction on account of such difference in the goods actually imported from the goods intended for. However, holding so, he considered the original price of USD 154. 34 PMT as specified in the Purchase agreement dtd. 22.08.2008 for valuation and assessment of the customs duty payable for coal actually imported which was different from the coal intended for. In a way, the valuation and assessment of the customs duty was done as if the coal supplied was of the specified ISP quality standards i.e it was not different form the coal intended for. This is not sustainable due to inherent contradiction in the approach of the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which makes the impugned order arbitrary; hence the same is liable to be set aside. 6. He also submits that the issue of valuation for assessment of the customs duty payable on the basis of price of goods actually imported is already settled by various decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the genuineness of the price reduction, and has proceeded to reject the appeal of the appellant. We may, however, add that the Commissioner (Appeals) did properly examine the cogency of the reasons for price reduction though he was not convinced to accept the same. 10. We find that the Hon ble supreme court in the matter of Choudhary Ship Breakers Vs. Commissioner of Ahmedabad reported at 2010 (259) ELT 161 (S.C.) supra observed as under:- 15 . According to Section 14(1) of the Act, assessment of customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is to be made on the value of the goods imported. Unless the value of the goods is fixed under the sub-section (2) of Section 14, the value has to be determined under sub-section (1) of the said Section. The value, as per Section 14(1), as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 10th October 2007, shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation - in the course of international trade. The word ordinarily is clarified in the Section itself, which describes an ordinary sale as one where the seller and the buyer have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
