GIRA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides at length. Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 had each imported 74.10 MTs of the impugned goods and declared the same as Trichloro 1 -3 -5 Triazine at unit price of Singapore 750 PMT CIF. The impugned goods were of Chinese origin but the same were imported from M/s. Sun Flower General Trading Co., Ajman, U.A.E. and G.A. International, Dubai, U.A.E. The related five Bills of Entry were filed between 30 -7 -1994 and 2 -12 -1994 through the same CHA. The goods were allowed provisional clearance against PD Bond pending chemical test and verification of value. On subsequent test, such goods were found to be 'Cyan uric Chloride'.

(2.) ON verification, the Customs authorities have ascertained the value of large number of imports of Cyan uric Chloride of Chinese origin imported at unit price of US 1860 PMT to US 1950 PMT during the period June, 1994 to November, 1994 as against the price declared by the appellants which was Singapore 750 equivalent to US 500 PMT only. As such, the Customs authorities have ordered assessment of the impugned goods at the lowest comparable price of US 1860 PMT CIF. The lower appellate authority has passed a detailed order considering all aspects of the case as well as various case laws while rejecting the appellants' claim and upholding the valuation ordered by the lower authority. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE main thrust of the arguments by Shri V.S. Nankani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants is that in the absence of any allegation of appellants paying any amount over and above the invoiced price to the suppliers, the declared value should have been accepted by the authorities below for assessment purposes. He further states that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai , the authorities below were required to accept the declared value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 instead of determining the value under Rule 5 on the basis of comparable goods. He also relies on an extract from the book "Customs Valuation Law & Practice - 2003" to argue that the price below prevailing market price is acceptable as per the Advisory Opinion 2.1 of the WTO Committee. The said extract is reproduced below : - The Committee opined that the mere fact that a price is lower than prevailing market prices for identical goods should not cause it to be rejected for the purpose of Article 1 (Rule 4), subject of course to the provisions of Article 17 [Rule 19(2)] of the Agreement. On the other hand, Shri Hitesh Shah, learned SDR arguing for the department makes the following submissions : -