KUNDAN RICE MILLS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant made import of Butter Oil and declared the unit price of US 1100 per m.t. The value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Customs Authorities and the same was enhanced to US 1560 per m.t.

(2.) The contention of the appellant is that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the other importers such as M/s. Nestle India Ltd. and M/s. Sterling Agro made import of butter oil from the same country of origin. The contention is that infact M/s. Nestle India Ltd. made import of butter oil from Belgium whereas the appellant made import from France. It is further contended that M/s. Nestle India made import of butter oil packed in consumer packs of 1 kg., 2 kg. whereas the appellant made import in bulk i.e. containers of 200 kgs. The appellant also produced a Bill of Entry filed by M/s. M.K. Marketing declaring the import of butter oil @ USS 1150 per m.t. The appellant also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) - (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 315 and submitted that the higher price in regard to another import, though contemporaneous in time is no ground for rejecting the transaction value for the purpose of assessment of imported goods. It is to be seen whether the price in each transaction is a full and commercial price. The contention of the appellant is that the goods on the basis of which the value was enhanced were not from the same country of origin and M/s. Nestle India made import of the butter oil in small packing whereas the appellant made import in bulk packing.

(3.) The contention of the Revenue is that the value was enhanced on the basis of the market enquiries and also on the value of contemporary import of the same goods by M/s. Nestle India Ltd. and M/s. Sterling Agro from the same country of origin, therefore, the value declared by the appellant is not accepted.