Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Tarajyot Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs Cc on 15 November, 2006
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The appellants imported polypropylene granules from Japan and filed two Bills of Entry dated 23.9.99 for clearing the goods on payment of duty based on the declared unit price of US $ 460 C&F (Chennai). The original authority rejected this value after noting international 'PLATT' prices relevant to the time of the subject import, which were in the range of US $ 500 - 500 C&F. That authority proceeded to fix the assessable value of the goods, under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, on the basis of the minimum PLATT price [US $ 500] taken to be the unit price of "identical goods" for the purpose of the said rule. Accordingly, the price of the goods was loaded. The assessee, aggrieved by this decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter fixed the assessable value of the goods at US $ 500 C&F itself, but under Rule 8 of the above Rules. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the original authority had erred in adopting the PLATT price as the transaction value of identical goods imported into India at or about the time of the subject imports. However, after traversing sequentially through rules 5 to 7, she chose to invoke Rule 8 for determining the assessable value of the goods. Under this Rule, learned Commissioner (Appeals) chose to adopt the PLATT price as a reasonable means for best judgment. Hence the present appeal.
2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that admittedly there was no contemporaneous import of identical goods so as to enable the lower authorities to reject the transaction value of the goods on that ground. The only other material available and availed of by both the lower authorities is the price of identical goods reported by PLATT. The question now before us is whether PLATT price was a sustainable basis for determination of the assessable value of the goods. In the case of Adoni Exports Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam , this Bench held as under:
11. We find that unlike the London Metal Exchange, where actual trading of metals takes place i.e., transactions are involved, and which are reflected in its LME Bulletin, the PLATT's price report is not based on transactions but merely is a compilation of price ranges of various plastic materials. Further more, as these are region-wise (and not country-wise), therefore for all these reasons they do not represent alternate transaction values. We are hence unable to accept the proposition in the impugned orders that the assessable value can be enhanced on their basis in the absence of instances of contemporaneous imports and as no clear and convincing evidence to prove any fraud in the declared values is led with respect to HDPE (IG) and HDPE (FG). In the case of Hind Afghan (supra) it was held that price ranges in Financial Journals are not relevant as acceptable transaction values. Since PLATT's report is also merely a similar journal, the ratio of the said decision is applied.
The above decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing on merits Civil Appeal No. 2279/2000 filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam vide 2002 (146) ELT A213 (SC). The decision of this Bench in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Deejay Plastics (P) Ltd. is also to the same effect. Thus, it is settled law that any price reported by PLATT cannot be reliably chosen as the basis for determination of the assessable value of imported goods. In the present case, the Revenue has no other means within their control for rejecting the transaction value. Therefore, it is held that the transaction value declared by the importer needs to be accepted.
3. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)