MODI RUBBER LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals are directed against the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bombay vide Order -in -Appeal Nos. 318 -320/2001. The appellants had imported synthetic Butyl rubber (BK 1675N) at the rate of US Dollar 1.75 per kg. under Bill of Entry Nos. 9790/26 -2 -98 and 4429/12 -3 -98. The quantity imported was 84.600 MT each. They had also imported 42.300 MT at the rate of 1.70 US Dollar tinder Bill of Entry No. 9577, dated 29 -1 -98. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs passed 3 orders dated 9 -3 -1998,12 -3 -1998 and 19 -3 -1998 rejecting the declared price of the imported goods and ordered enhancement of the same to US Dollar 1.75 per kg. The above orders were challenged before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). All the 3 appeals were rejected by the appellate authority under the above mentioned common order dated 27 -7 -2001.

(2.) It is contented that the only reason for rejecting the transaction value was that during the preceding 4 Months there were imports of synthetic Butyl rubber from Russia at the rate of US Dollar 1.75 per kg. It is contented by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Limited v. Commissioner of Customs [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] and Basant Industries v. Additional Commissioner of Customs [1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.)]. Reliance was also placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of the Tribunal in Balbir Saluja v. CC, New Delhi [2001 (46) RLT 971].

(3.) THE appellant has contended that there was no justification in rejecting the transaction value in the present case as none of the 4 clauses in the provisions under Sub -rule (2) of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 would be applicable to the case of the appellant. If that is so, the appellant submits that, the transaction value of the imported goods which was the actual price paid should have been accepted as price of the goods sold in the course of international trade for the purpose of Sub -section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Counsel would further submit that the provisions of Rule 10A are not applicable in respect of the first import which took place on 29 -1 -98, as Rule 10A was introduced in the statute only on 19 -2 -98. He would also point out that there is no indication in the Orders impugned, to show that the authority has taken recourse to Rule 10A. Under these circumstances, he pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever for rejecting the transaction value.