Full Judgment
2. M/s. Max India Limited the respondents imported polypropylene at the declared rate of US$ 520/(c) cif vide B/E dated 11.10.99. The goods were shipped on 30.9.99. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the invoice price and enhanced the value to US$ 711 PMT. The sole ground given in the order was that the market reports issued called PLATT's polymerscan showed the price prevailing as on 6.10.99 as US$ 790 PMT. The loaded price was after making due adjustment thereto. The importers then approached the Commissioner(Appeals) who set aside the lower order in the following words:(c) "In the instant cases I find that impugned goods have been supplied by a manufacturer. I also find that adjudicating authority has placed reliance only on the PLATT's polymerscan prices without adducing any evidence of contemporary imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices. on the contrary appellant has furnished copies of bills of entry which do indicate that contemporary identical goods have been permitted clearance at lower rate than the declared invoice prices of the impugned goods. It is an admitted fact that ratio of CEGAT judgement in the case of Adani Exports Ltd versus Commissioner of Customs, Vishakapatnam reported in 2000 (116) ELT 715 (Tribunal) squarely applies to the present cases. I, therefore, find that enhancement of declared value is totally unjustified and contrary to the various judicial pronouncements as well as Customs Valuation Rules 1988." 3. The Revenue have filed the appeal against this order and the present application for stay of operation thereof. 4. In the appeal memorandum no reference is made to the observation of the Commissioner that in the case of other imports, the Customs had accepted the valuation more than what was shown by the present importers. Analysis of the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Customs Act was made. The judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner or Customs, Mumbai vs Mukund Ltd. [1999(107)ELT 653(Tri) was also cited. We find no relevance from the reading of the cited judgement. On the other hand, we find judgement in the case of Adani Exports ltd. Vs.
CC, Visakhapatnam [ 2000(116)E.L.T. 715(Tri) to be relevant. In this judgement, reference has been made to PLATT's price and caution is given that the price does not supersede the genuine transaction value.
5. The fact that the Customs had cleared the same goods at lower price not having been contested, we find nothing of substance in the appeal from the Revenue. The application for stay is dismissed. The appeal also does not survive and is dismissed.