ANDHRA SUGARS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have challenged the enhancement of the transaction value entered into by the appellants and declared in the Bill of Entry in respect of 500 MTs of Crude Sunflower Oil. The appellants' contention is that the value cannot be enhanced as the value had been fixed in terms of the contract and the international prices had been fluctuating. The value declared by them was in terms of the Contract and international prices and that they have filed the brochure to show the prices to be the same. It is stated by them that the department revised the valuation based on similar imports in the same shipment. It is their contention that the transaction value cannot be rejected as held by the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai, 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) unless there are factors as laid down in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules which is absent in the present case. There was no Show Cause Notice issued nor there was an allegation that the contract price has not been given effect to and extra money has been paid to other source. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the Eicher Tractor ruling of the Apex Court is required to be accepted in the present case. It is his contention that the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Sneha Traders Private Ltd. v. CC, 1992 (60) ELT 43(Cal.) also held that price as prevalent at the time of contract is required to be accepted and subsequent price increase at or near the time of shipment or importation is irrelevant. He further relies on the Judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Vision Trade Links v. CC, Nagpur, 2004 (169) ELT 151 (Tri. -Del.) wherein also the enhancement valuation was set aside on the ground that no evidence was produced by Revenue to show that transaction value between the parties was influenced by any consideration other than commercial consideration.

(2.) The learned JDR pointed out that the department can reject the transaction value and can rely on contemporaneous evidence to show that the invoice value is not the correct value and in this context relied on the Apex Court Judgment rendered in the case of Punjab Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, 2003 (157) ELT 625(SC).

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions and find from the impugned order that the Commissioner has examined all the factors and has found that there is contemporaneous import of the same item in the same shipment to the different value. He has noted that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the enhanced value of USD 485 MT as per Section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. He has noted that even the Supreme Court Judgment, in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. (cited supra), has been delivered in the context of amended Section 14 (1A) of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. The Commissioner has noted that the said citation supports the stand taken by the department as the import made by the appellants falls within the exceptions contained in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules [to be specific under proviso (b) to Rule 4(2)]. Therefore, he has upheld the re -determination of the assessable value. We find that the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. CC has held that Customs authorities while assessing the value of imported goods are not bound by the figure mentioned in the invoice and can rely on contemporaneous evidence to show that the invoice value is not the correct value. In the present case, the Revenue has shown that there was contemporaneous import in the same shipment on a higher value. We find that the learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the Sneha Traders, but the Apex Court has not approved of this Judgment in a 3 -Member Judgment rendered in the case of Rajkumar Nitting Mills (P) Ltd. v. CC, Bombay, 1998 (98) ELT 292(SC). In this case, there was a contract price but the same was not accepted in view of higher comparable price available for comparison. The facts of this case clearly apply to the case in hand. The findings recorded by the Apex Court in paras 5 to 9 are re -produced below: