Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Exide Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (I), Mumbai on 6 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. C/882/02 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 306/2002-Mum dated 15.5.2002 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Exide Industries Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri R. Nambirajan, Advocate, for appellant Shri Manish Mohan, Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 6.10.2009 Date of Decision: 6.10.2009 ORDER NO................................. Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J),
After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that a valuation dispute is involved in this case. The appellant had imported two consignments of Antimony and filed two bills of entry, one on 28.1.1999 and the other on 29.1.1999, declaring unit price of the goods as USD 1220 PMT and USD 1225 PMT. The Customs authorities laid their hands on bill of entry No.8511 dated 20.2.1999 covering import of identical goods by M/s. Indian Oxides and Chemicals Ltd., Pune, @ USD 1430 PMT (CIF). On this basis, they proposed to enhance the assessable value on the basis of the contemporaneous import price of USD 1430 PMT (CIF). Accordingly, after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the original authority enhanced the assessable value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. Certain quotations of prices of identical goods imported by different parties during November to December 1998, produced by the appellant, were rejected. The decision of the original authority was sustained by the first appellate authority which rejected the belated plea made by the appellant that the price difference was on account of quantity difference. Hence the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel has reiterated the grounds of this appeal and the learned SDR has argued in support of the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that a total quantity of 40 MTs of Antimony was imported by the appellant. The two consignments were imported from different suppliers of the same country of origin. They produced evidence in support of the plea that the unit prices of USD 1220 PMT and USD 1225 PMT were the prices agreed between them and the respective suppliers. On this basis, they argued that the transaction values should be accepted under Section 14 of the Customs Act. They further argued that the transaction value could not be rejected without stating specific reasons referable to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. They relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CC 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC). These arguments were rejected by the lower authorities. These very arguments have been reiterated in the present appeal. Furthermore, it is submitted that the unit price of USD 1430 PMT (CIF) pertained to a quantity of only 5 MTs of Antimony imported by M/s. Indian Oxides and Chemicals Ltd. whereas the unit prices declared in the present case were for a total quantity of 40 MTs of identical goods. It is submitted that the differential price is attributable to the quantity difference. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this plea on the sole ground that this plea was not before the lower authority. We are not impressed with this stand of the lower appellate authority inasmuch as the quantity difference was a fact borne on record and it was open to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to consider this fact when pointed out by the appellant. Today we are considering it and accordingly, we are of the view that the unit price of USD 1430 PMT declared by the contemporaneous importer in respect of 5 MTs of Antimony cannot be cited in support of a proposal for rejecting the transaction value in the present case. The transaction value in the present case is for a total quantity of 40 MTs of Antimony. It is a common practice of international trade that the quantity imported has a bearing on the unit price. In other words, quantity discounts are a part of the recognized international trade practice. We are of the view that the declared values in this case are to be accepted and the goods to be assessed accordingly. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, we allow this appeal.
(Pronounced in Court) (A.K. Srivastava) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 4