Full Judgment
2. Shri Prem Ranjan, learned Advocate, submitted that they had imported 34 MT Polyacetal K 300 and K 700 @ US$ 885 PMT; that they had also imported 102 MT high density Polythelene @ US $ 500 PMT; that the Deputy Commissioner enhanced the value to US $ 900 PMT and US $ 580 PMT respectively; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under both the impugned orders has upheld the enhancement in the assessable value on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner besides relying on PLATT rate had also taken into consideration the contemporary import price of the same goods. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the value declared in the relevant invoices reflects true and correct transactional value which merits acceptance in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with Rule 4 (1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988; that the Appellants had imported the impugned goods on a large scale and hence the quantity discount has to be considered while considering the transaction value; that the contemporaneous import of similar goods relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner was for a lesser quantity that is 17 MT of Polyacetal whereas the Appellants had imported 34 MT and as such both the quantities are not on the same commercial level. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of GSA (India) v.Commissioner of Customs, 1988 (103) ELT 541. In the case of GSA (India), the quantity imported by the appellants therein was 30 MT and the contemporaneous invoices covered quantity only 5 MT. The Tribunal has held that price declared by the Appellants was 5% less than the price shown in the invoice relied upon by the Department and this difference could reasonably be attributed quantity discount and, therefore, there was no justification to enhance the price. He also submitted that High Court of Gujarat has held in Ram Chandra Art Silk Yarn v. Union of India, 2001 (77) ECC 207 (Gujarat) that in the matter of valuation, PLATT price is not mandatory and it depends on case to case and it is relevant only in the case of where there is a gross violation.
3. Countering the arguments, Shri R.C. Sarikhla, learned Senior Departmental Representative reiterated the finding as contained in both the impugned Orders.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. As per provisions of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value. As per Rule 4, the transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9. Rule 3 further provides that if the value cannot be determined on the basis of transaction value, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Valuation Rules. The Revenue has enhanced the transaction value on the basis of contemporary imports and PLATT price without taking into consideration the larger quantity of goods imported by the Appellants. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that whereas the Appellants had imported 34 MT Polyacetal K 300 and K 700, the contemporaneous imports is only for 17 MT which is 50% of the quantity imported by the Appellants; that for applying the value of the identical goods, Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules provides that the transaction value of identical goods should be at the same commercial level and in the substantially the same quantity as the goods being valued. As the contemporaneous imports are not on the same commercial level, the value thereof cannot be taken as the basis for determining the assessable value of the goods imported by the Appellants. We, therefore, allow both the Appeals of the Appellants with consequential relief, if any.