PUSHPANJALI SILKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had filed Bill of Entry dated 1.2.2006 for clearance of 6725.94 kgs. of 'Tussah silk' of Chinese origin imported by them. The price of the goods declared by them was US 13 per kg. After noting contemporaneous import price of identical goods cleared through the same port, the original authority rejected the declared value and adopted the contemporaneous unit price of US 18 per kg. under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, as basis for determination of the assessable value of the goods. The appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision of the said authority was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the assessee.

(2.) HEARD both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the subject import was under a contract entered into between the importer and the foreign supplier on 15.1.2005 and the declared price of the goods was the transaction value in terms of the contract. The import was made within the validity period of the contract. The department had no case that the importer and the supplier had any interest in the business of each other or that the above price was not the sole consideration for sale of the goods. Hence it was incumbent on the lower authorities to accept the transaction value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act and under Rule 4(1) of the Valuation Rules. It was not open to them to enter into any enquiry. The lower authorities had erroneously followed the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajkumar Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner , the ratio of which was applicable only for the period prior to amendment of the Valuation Rules. The present case fell under the new Valuation Rules and therefore the lower authorities ought to have followed the apex Court's ruling in Eicher Tractors v. Commissioner in the matter of valuation of the subject goods. In a similar case of the same assessee, this Tribunal accepted the declared value of the imported goods, by following the ruling in Eicher Tractors (supra) and the Tribunal's decision in the cases of Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner and Agarwal Industries v. Commissioner . This was a reference to Final Order No. 174/2006 dated 20.3.2006 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. C/50/2006 [Commissioner of Customs v. Pushpanjali Silks Pvt. Ltd. ]. Learned Counsel pointed out that the civil appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against the said final order of this Bench was dismissed by the apex Court. In this connection, she produced a copy of the apex Court's order dated 10.7.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 2752/2006. Learned Counsel argued that, now that the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case relating to similar import of silk of Chinese origin under a similar contract with the foreign supplier stands affirmed by the apex Court, the impugned order, wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) chose not to follow the said decision of the Tribunal, was liable to be set aside. It was also pointed out that a show -cause notice recently issued by the Department to the appellants in respect of two Bills of Entry filed by them in June 2006 for clearance of raw silk of Chinese origin imported under a contract with the foreign supplier was quashed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court on the ground that this Tribunal's decision in Final Order No. 174/2006 dated 20.3.2006 . affirmed by the apex Court was binding on the Revenue. In this connection, learned Counsel produced a copy of the High Court's judgment dated 31.7.2006 in W.P. No. 23282 of 2006 [Pushpanjali Silk Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and Ors. ]. Learned Counsel finally prayed for a direction for assessment of the subject goods on the basis of unit price of US 13.76 per kg. (CIF). Learned SDR reiterated the findings and observations of the lower appellate authority.

(3.) AFTER giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) took the stand that "every Bill of Entry gave rise to a fresh cause of action" and accordingly proceeded to deal with the case. According to him, different imports, though of identical goods imported under identical circumstances and under identical contracts, should be dealt with independently in appeals under the Customs Act and any decision of the appellate authority in respect of any one of such imports was not necessarily to be followed by appellate Commissioner dealing with the other imports made by the assessee. This premise has been disapproved by the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 31.7.2006. Para 15 of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment is relevant to this context, and the same is reproduced below: