Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Vs. Sangeeta Metal (India) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....was not the only basis for the tribunal's conclusion in that order, it did provide support.4. it is doubtful if that conclusion of the tribunal is any longer good law in the light of the judgment of the supreme court in eicher tractors v. cce 2001 (122) elt 321. the supreme court in that judgment has held that in the absence of any of the circumstances prescribed in the customs valuation rules for not accepting the transaction value declared by the importer, that value has to be accepted. the department's appeal does not cite the presence of any such factor. the department did not even attempt to show that import of goods by anyone else at the price that it proposed. this supports the importer's case.there was therefore insufficient material for not accepting the declared value.

Judgment:

2. The respondent to this appeal imported a consignment of stainless steel sheets and plates and filed a bill of entry for its clearance.

The department was of the view that the value of the goods was too low and proposed to enhance it. It proposed to enhance it by a figure which represented the price of similar goods published in the Metal Bulletin with appropriate adjustment for freight and quality. Adjudicating on this proposal, the value of the goods was accordingly enhanced. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority finding a contravention of principles of natural justice. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case and again enhanced the value.

The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there was not evidence of contemporary imports of the goods identical or similar to those under consideration and concluded that reliance on the Metal Bulletin in that situation could not be sustained. He therefore allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the department.

3. The ground in the appeal relies upon the observation of the Tribunal in CCE v. Mukund Ltd. 1999 (107) ELT 653 that London Metal Exchange price can be considered to be a fair indicator of the prevailing market price of the goods. Although this was not the only basis for the Tribunal's conclusion in that order, it did provide support.

4. It is doubtful if that conclusion of the Tribunal is any longer good law in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors v. CCE 2001 (122) ELT 321. The Supreme Court in that judgment has held that in the absence of any of the circumstances prescribed in the Customs Valuation Rules for not accepting the transaction value declared by the importer, that value has to be accepted. The department's appeal does not cite the presence of any such factor. The department did not even attempt to show that import of goods by anyone else at the price that it proposed. This supports the importer's case.

There was therefore insufficient material for not accepting the declared value.