9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing authorities at any given time for the same goods. If they reject various transaction values in a search for the correct transaction value, there would be no satisfactory answer at all and assessment would be rendered well nigh impossible. In the present case, the appellant got certain reduced prices apparently because of quantity and time of supply. Also because he is an old regular buyer of the supplier. The Deputy Commissioner has ordered that in place of those discounted prices, prices fixed by him would be the basis for assessment. In doing so, Deputy Commissioner has allowed reduction of 15 US $ PMT after every purchase of 1000 MT. This is nothing more than his ipse dixit. The discount to be allowed while valuing the goods for customs assessment is the discount given by the vendors for their commercial consideration and not the various discounts to be fixed by assessing authorities. In the facts of the present case, it is obvious that appellant had got a lower price than M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries Ltd. on account of their long term imports and the quantity contracted for. As the Apex Court observed in Basant Industries case [ 1995 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT] , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14(1) of the Customs Act and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi rejected the appellant's contention, noting that the importer had failed to submit the details of the negotiation and that the "prices agreed due to competitive global reduction in steel price" were not the prices in the ordinary course of international trade". However, in view of the fect that M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries India Ltd. imported 1000 MT of steel during 1999-2000, a lower quantity than the quantity ordered by M/s. Mark Auto Industries Ltd., the Deputy Commissioner allowed discount at the rate of US $ 15 PMT of import above a quantity of 1000 MT. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner ordered the assessment of the goods including those already imported and waiting to be imported by the appellant in future, at the assessable values indicated in the Table to the Order. That Table and direction of the Deputy Commissioner are reproduced below : "Period QTY. (MTS) CIF US $ LOADED VALUE IN US $ Oct. 1999 to Dec. 1999 600 585 718 Jan. 2000 to Mar. 2000 400 858 718 April, 2000 to June 2000 500 570 703 July, 2000 to Sept. 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round alone. With regard to the goods not yet imported, the learned Counsel pointed out that advance determination of the value of those goods by the Deputy Commissioner was not contemplated in the Customs Act at all, and on that ground, that part of the order also was required to be set aside. With regard to the goods covered by 9 Bills of Entry from April to May, 2000, the learned Counsel argued that the declared values were the transaction values and they were required to be accepted in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Learned Counsel emphasised that the transaction between the appellant and M/s. British Steel Corpus was a purely commercial transaction and the prices agreed upon represented full consideration for the sale of the goods. Learned Counsel also pointed out that appellant had long term import relations with the British Steel Corpus and that along with the quantity contracted was the reason why appellant was able to negotiate a lower price than the price accepted by the new entrant, M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries Ltd. Learned Counsel further emphasised that, though the contract was of 30th June, 1999, the prices fixed under the contract were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een passed following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). It was submitted that time is an important element for valuation of goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act. Price at the time of import has to be accepted for valuation and not the price contracted much in advance. Learned DR pointed out that on this issue, there is no difference with regard to legal provisions prevailing under the old rules and the present Customs Valuation Rules. She, therefore, contended that the impugned order is required to be sustained. 8. On a perusal of the records and the relevant legal provisions, we find merit in the appellant's contentions that reopening of the past assessments under 20 Bills of Entry is clearly against the specific provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act. That Section stipulates the procedure to be followed when any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied etc. The requirement is that a show cause notice should be issued to the parties within the period prescribed in that Section. The goods covered by the 20 Bills of Entry in question had been finally assessed and cleared. Therefore, those assessments could be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common knowledge that a price which is offered by a supplier to an old customer may be different from a price which the same supplier offers to a totally new customer." 10. In the instant case, the appellant had tied up a long term supply contract. Prices were fixed depending upon the quantity and time of supply. The prices varied from US $ 585 PMT to 555 US $ PMT depending upon the time of supply. Such a price clearly satisfies the requirement of being normal price at the time of importation. The transaction value has not been questioned by the Customs Authorities on account of any deficiencies mentioned under the Customs Valuation Rules. That another person imported identical goods at higher price is no ground for discarding the transaction value. Such a course is also fraught with practical difficulties. As transaction values vary from customer to customer and from seller to seller, different transaction values would be observed by the assessing authorities at any given time for the same goods. If they reject various transaction values in a search for the correct transaction value, there would be no satisfactory answer at all and assessment would be rendered well nigh impossibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
