MILTON LAMINATES LTD. Vs. C.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Milton Laminates Ltd., Ahmedabad, is a manufacturer of laminates. They import "Melamine" for use in the manufacture of laminates. These appeals arise from a dispute about valuation of four consignments of Melamine so imported from Indonesia. While the importer declared a value ranging from 700 to 708 US MT, the Customs authorities ordered the assessment of the goods on enhanced value ranging from 998 US PMT to 1041 PMT. Details are available in the table below:

(2.) FINDINGS for enhancement of value recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kandla who adjudicated the cases is as under:

(3.) APPEALS were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad against that above orders. They were rejected. Hence the present 4. The contention of the appellant is that the assessment orders passed by the lower authorities are contrary to the specific legal provisions on the subject contained in Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 3 and 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988. It is also submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbay - [2000 (122) RLT 321 SC]. They point out that the imports were purely commercial transactions with the Indonesian supplier and prices represented the whole and sole consideration. They submit that in such a case, the goods were liable to be assessed at the appellant's transaction value. It is their contention that according to Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, assessable value is to be determined on the basis of international sale price. Further, Rule 3 (1) provides that "the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value" and according to Rule 4 (1) of Valuation Rules "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 of these Rules". During the hearing of the appeals, leaned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the Customs authorities have not brought out any material casting any doubt that the "price actually paid or payable for the goods" was more than the amount mentioned in the sale invoice. Instead, and order of enhancement of price has been passed noting that "there was a doubt regarding the value of the imported goods." However, no reason for doubting the value has been stated. Further, the appellant had also pointed out that another import from Korea had taken place at Nhava Sheva Sheva Port at the rate of US 730MT, but no note is being taken of it.