(1.) THE appellants imported Ethylene -Di -Chloride (EDC). The transaction value declared by them was enhanced in respect of one import from US 295 PMT to US 350 PMT. In the second import the declared value of US 305 was enhanced to US 345 PMT. The enhancement was made on the basis of import by Reliance Industries Ltd. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/applicant that they are regular importers of Ethylene -Di -Chloride (EDC) and their annual import would come to 1,30,000 to 1,50,000 MTs every year. On the other hand, Reliance Industries are producers of EDC. Apart from referring to the price at which Reliance had imported, no other material is relied on by the Revenue to raise a doubt as to the correctness of the transaction value declared by the appellant. It is further contended that there will be difference in the price on the basis of the quantity imported and also on the basis of the difference in the country from where the import is made. The appellant has further pointed out to the ICIS -LOR Reports of the same period would show that the price of EDC for the Asian market was slightly below US 300 PMT. The data given in the above report would show that the price fluctuates drastically and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the basis of an import by another party for loading the transaction value declared by the appellant.
(2.) LEARNED DR on the other hand submits that price difference is so much that this by itself should be a reason for doubting the correctness of the transaction value declared.
(3.) WE find that the appellant has made out a prima facie case in its favour. Apart from the price difference there are no other material to doubt the truth or authenticity of the transaction value declared by them especially in the nature of the commodity imported, the price of which always fluctuates. In the light of the above, we exempt the condition for pre -deposit and there will be a stay of recovery of the duty. Post the appeal for hearing on 10 -2 -2004.