LAWS(CE)-2009-2-62

APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Decided On February 23, 2009
APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant
V/S
Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISPUTE in the present appeal relates to assessable value of Acrylonitrile imported by the appellant at the declared value of US $ 1143 per MT. The original adjudicating authority enhanced the value to US $ 1187 per MT based upon the contemporaneous imports as also on the prices reflected in the international journal ICIS -LOR. The appeal filed against the above order enhancing the price and confirming the differential duty of Rs. 1,38,724/ -, was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.

(2.) WE have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri W. Christian, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak, SDR appearing for the Revenue. The appellants contention is that they are regular importers of the said product, which is being used by them as raw material. In respect of the earlier imports also the Revenue has raised doubts about the correctness of the assessable value and the original adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands. However, on appeal against the same, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside such orders by observing that there is nothing on records to reflect upon the fact that the transaction value was not correct and in the absence of rejection of transaction value, the same cannot be doubted. While setting aside the duty confirmation, Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order in original in appeal Nos. 120 and 121/2005, dated 2 -5 -2005, after discussing various decisions has observed as under : -

(3.) IN the present case also the appellants are taking the same stand that there was no basis of rejection of transaction value that the price reflected in the invoices and the contract is the correct prices and there is no allegation of flow back of money; that the prices were based on the commercial consideration; that there is no doubt about the correctness of the contract; that the international prices, as reflected in ICIS -LOR were rising upward; that the price as reflected in the said journal cannot be adopted; that due to long relationship with the buyers and continuous import of said product, there was some negotiation between the appellant and overseas supplier.