ETERNIT EVEREST LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Two Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals v. C.C., Visakhapatnam reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) (sic) has held that where the parties had purchased the goods from MMTC on high -sea sales basis, the transaction value, (for the purpose of assessment for levy of customs duty) in such cases, has to be taken on the basis of the revised invoice value submitted by M/s. MMTC to the appellants (Importers).

(2.) THIS issue whether the prices paid by the canalising agency (MMTC) to the foreign supplier be regarded as transaction value for the purpose of customs valuation or the price charged by the canalising agency from its buyer on the high -sea sales basis (which includes the service charges of the canalising agency) be the transaction value for the purpose of customs valuation came up for consideration again before the Bench "A" of this Tribunal in Appeal No. C/3278/90 -A. The ld. Bench on hearing the submissions of the appellant observed that there are various aspects arising for the consideration in this case. It is no doubt true that original import was initiated by MMTC but the Bill of Entry was actually presented by the appellant on the strength of high -sea sales by MMTC to the appellant. It is clear mat at the time of sale, title vested with MMTC and at the time of presentation of the Bill of Entry title vested with the appellant. Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 speaks of "transaction value". The question is which is the transaction which is to be taken into consideration; the transaction between the foreign supplier and MMTC or transaction between the MMTC and the appellant. The question whether the later transaction is the one which led to the import and whether that is the relevant transaction for the purpose of rule 4 of the rules would also arise for consideration. The Bench held the view that the decision in the case of Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. (Supra) needed reconsideration and in the circumstances referred the case to a Larger Bench.

(3.) THE matter has thus come up for consideration before this Larger Bench. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, JDR for the Revenue who have made elaborate submissions in support of their respective cases. However, it is observed that the issue under consideration stands fully resolved by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.). A copy of this judgment, incidentally, is placed in the paper book filed by the appellant. In this judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that service charges payable to the MMTC by the appellant for importation of the goods made by them, is includible in the assessable value of imports as provided in the Customs Act and Customs Valuation (Determinational of Price) Rules, 1988. They have repelled the arguments of the appellants advanced before them and dismissed their appeals with costs.