Commissioner of Customs Vs. Emil Corporation - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the delay is condoned and the appeal taken up for disposal with consent of the departmental representative.2. by the order impugned in the appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has held that the value declared by emil corporation, the respondent to this appeal, for the numbering machines that it imported was required to be accepted as the transaction value in terms of rule 4 of the customs (valuation) rules, in the absence of any circumstances which would justify the applicability of the contentions contained in that rule justifying its rejection.3. the appeal against this order does not address this issue at all, but relies upon the fact that the other imports of similar goods from other persons from the same country, china, were valued differently.the ratio of the supreme court's judgment in eicher tractors ltd. v. cc - 2000 (122) e.l.t. 321, which the commissioner (appeals) relied upon is clear, that in the absence of the special circumstances referred to in sub-rule (4) of the valuation rules, the declared value has to be accepted as the transaction value. the commissioner (appeals) has not relied upon the opinion of the supreme court (contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment) that the discount is a commercially acceptable measure. he has relied upon the ratio set forth in paragraphs 13 and 14 that transaction value can be determined under rule 4(1), and does not fall under the existence in rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent rules. we, therefore, find no ground for interference with the commissioner (appeals), order.

Judgment:
1. The delay is condoned and the appeal taken up for disposal with consent of the Departmental Representative.

2. By the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the value declared by Emil Corporation, the respondent to this appeal, for the numbering machines that it imported was required to be accepted as the transaction value in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, in the absence of any circumstances which would justify the applicability of the contentions contained in that rule justifying its rejection.

3. The appeal against this order does not address this issue at all, but relies upon the fact that the other imports of similar goods from other persons from the same country, China, were valued differently.

The ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321, which the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon is clear, that in the absence of the special circumstances referred to in Sub-rule (4) of the Valuation Rules, the declared value has to be accepted as the transaction value. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not relied upon the opinion of the Supreme Court (contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment) that the discount is a commercially acceptable measure. He has relied upon the ratio set forth in paragraphs 13 and 14 that transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1), and does not fall under the existence in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent rules. We, therefore, find no ground for interference with the Commissioner (Appeals), order.