Judgment:
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2003 (V-II) Cus dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.
2. The appellants filed Bill of Entry dated 29.9.2001 for importation price was US $ 330 PMT. The Revenue found that the above value was low in comparison to US $ 432.00 PMT quoted in the warehousing Bill of Entry dated 29.9.2001 filed by the appellant as per the contract dated 6.8.2001 entered with the Exporter. The lower authority enhanced the value to US $ 432 PMT and confirmed the differential duty of Rs. 5,52,880/-. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the Order-in-Original. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order and come before the Tribunal for relief.
3. Shri Pramod Kathavi, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddi, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue.
4. The learned Advocate stated that the appellants entered into a contract with the foreign supplier and the price agreed is only as per the contract. The goods were shipped within the shipment period which was actually extended. The price paid for the goods is as agreed and stated in the contract. The contract with the foreign seller was backed by L.C. No. 0731501DC000065 dated 31.07.2001. The bank documents evidencing payment of the invoice value to the foreign supplier has also been filed. It was urged that the transaction Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988. There is no allegation that the transaction has not satisfied the conditions of Rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation Rules. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai . It was further pointed out that the reliance of the Revenue on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Knitting Mills Pvt.
Ltd. is not correct as the goods were imported prior to amendment of Section 14 of the Customs Act and before coming into force the Customs Valuation Rules. He said that the issue is squarely covered by decision of this Bench in the case of Aggarwal Industries and Ors. v. CC Visakhapatnam/Kakinada/Chennai/Hyderabad in Final Order No. 1301-1311/2005 dated 04.08.2005.
5. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The facts of the case are similar to those in the Final Order mentioned supra. The findings in the above said order are very relevant to the present case.
Therefore we are extracting the Para 2 of the said order herein as under: contracted price. However, due to certain circumstances, the foreign supplier was not in a position to supply the goods before the due date as per contract. Hence, the contract was extended. Ultimately, the goods were supplied at the contracted rate. However, on the same date of importation, the same hip also carried the same goods meant for other parties. In those cases, the prices were different. For example, in a particular case, the contracted price is 450 USD per MT but on the same date, for the same goods, there is another consignment where the price is 500 USD. The case of the Revenue is that the correct value for purposes of assessment would be only 500 USD as it represents the correct contemporaneous value. Hence, the transaction value declared by the importer was rejected. The lower authority demanded differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority. This Bench had an occasion to deal with similar issues. In the case of Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. CC, Visag. by Final Order No. 976/2004 dated 22.06.2005, a majority view was taken that transaction value can be rejected only if any of the situations mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 warrant the same. While taking such a decision, the Bench followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai mentioned case, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of 'special circumstances', price of imported goods is to be determined under Section 14(1)(A) in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The 'special circumstances' have been statutorily particularized in Rule 4(2) and in the absence of these exceptions, it is mandatory for Customs to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goods in the particular transaction. In all the cases, we find that the transaction value has been arrived at purely on commercial considerations based on contracts. The supplier in order to honour the contracts, supplied the goods at the contracted price. There is also no allegation that the appellants paid to the supplier more than the contracted value. Under these circumstances, there are actually no grounds to reject the transaction value. The reliance on Rajkumar Knitting Mills case does not appear to be correct as the same was rendered in the context of the old law. In view of the above observations, we allow all the appeals with consequential relief if any.
By following ratio of the above Final Order, we allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.
(Operative portion of the has been pronounced in the open court on completion of hearing)