Full Judgment
2. We have heard Shri Ravinder Narain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Monika Singal, Advocate and Ms. Rajni Natrajan, Advocate. Shri Ravinder Narain, learned Advocate, submits that M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd., has placed order when the international price was US $ 1770 PMT. They have also opened a letter of credit accordingly. Subsequently, international price came down and their supplier agreed to reduce the price to US $ 1700 PMT. He referred to the invoices all dated 23.7.1991 which indicates the price of US $ 1700 PMT. He further submits that it took some time to revise the letter of credit and that there was no allegation that any extra amount had been remitted to the supplier.
Subsequently, the purchase orders were also revised. He pleaded that the Importer had acted in a bona fide manner and that under the Customs Valuation Rules, the prices as declared by them were acceptable.
3. In reply, Shri K. Shiv Kumar, learned JDR referred to the arguments taken by the Assistant Collector and submits that the letter of credit had been revised after the goods had been shipped. In the original document, the declared price was only US $ 1770 PMT and that was correct price for the purpose of Customs Valuation Rules.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the invoice indicates the price as US $ 1700 PMT. The appellant had amended the letter of credit. The purchase order has also been amended by the Supplier.
5. Under the Customs Valuation Rules, we consider that the transaction value in the facts and circumstances of this case, is acceptable. There is no allegation of any extra remittance. Documents on record indicate the bona fides of the Importer.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, we consider that price declared by the Importer was acceptable. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and as a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief as per law. Ordered accordingly.