RAJKUMAR INTERNATIONAL Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant imported in May 1996, two consignments of gum Arabic of Nigerian origin. One was a mixed grade III, for which it declared the price of US $ 325 per ton CIF and the other Sokoto grade II for which it had declared the CIF value of US $ 300 per ton. The notice issued to it proposed to enhance the value of the mixed grade III to US $ 500 per ton. The basis for the enhancement was two imports, one of each grade in question in March and April 1996, by an importer in Bombay.

(2.) THE appellant resisted the contention in the notice. This import has been made directly from Nigerian producer, where as the goods under consideration in each case has been imported from traders in Germany. The imports from the traders in Germany would take into account the expenses involved in the trade and the margin of trader and the cost would necessarily be higher. The transactions by the appellant and the transactions with which it was compared were not on the same commercial level and the quantity was also different. The quantity imported by the appellant of mixed grade III was 2000 ton, whereas the imports from Germany trader were much less of 39.6 ton. After considering these submissions, the Commissioner has passed this order. He has based his order however mainly on instances of 15 imports relating to gum Arabic mixed grade III imported between March and July 1996, ranging between US $ 430 and 510 per ton fob. He therefore applied the price of US $ 500 for the mixed grade. He gave details of three imports of Sokoto grade at US $ 410 per ton. He therefore confirmed the proposal in the notice for enhancement of value of both the consignments. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE departmental representative contends that the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors v. CC is not applicable to the facts before us. He contends that there is a clear misdeclaration of value alleged in the notice. What the appellant declared was not the transaction value but invoice value. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 4 will not apply. According to him, the department had accepted the transaction value as genuine in the case of Eicher Tractors v. CC.