ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 1470/96 dated 28.8.96 confirming the order passed by Additional Commissioner enhancing the value of imported item Zeolite of 20 MT. imported by the appellants directly from USA at US$ 205 per MT C&F Madras. The Order-in-Original states that on scrutiny of the documents and comparison of computer print out and invoice of similar items imported by different importers from Indonesia, the price was found to be US$ 890 (US$ 638.9 MT CIF for the quantity of 20 MT Zeolite) imported by M/s. Gem Aquaculture S.P. Ltd. It is stated in the Order-in-Original that verification of relevant invoices and analysis certificates relevant to the print out shows that this consignment also originated from Indonesia. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner revised the value rejecting the transaction value of fixing the price at US$ 550 per MT CIF after granting discount of 30% on the ground that since the invoice is not available for verification of the supplier, a discount to the extent of Rs. US$ 30 per MT is required to be granted. He has noted that this is because the item which has been imported by others originated from Indonesia while in the present case the imports are from USA which required grant of some discount. This was seriously challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act cannot be rejected unless evidence of contemporary imports is produced. It was stated that evidence of similar imports from the same country of origin, was never produced. Even the computer print out of other importers was also not furnished. It was also pleaded that what was imported was a natural zeolite which is cheaper compared to synthetic one. However, this plea was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he upheld the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner including giving allowance of US$ 30 per MT.
2. Ld.Consultant Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy pointed out that the Apex Court has clearly laid down that transaction value arrived at under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act cannot be rejected if it satisfies the import as held in EICHER TRACTORS LTD. VS. CC, MUMBAI [2000(122) ELT 321 (SC)]. It was pointed out that for taking a different view, the department has to produce evidence of contemporaneous import from the same time, place and origin of the imports. If that is not produced, then in such a circumstance, the transaction value cannot be rejected. He further submits that there was no under hand dealing nor there was flow back of funds nor there was any such allegation. Therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court which was in consonance with earlier orders of the Supreme Court is required to be upheld. He submits that straightaway the transaction value cannot be rejected and the department cannot straightaway go to Rule 8 without exhausting other rules. He pointed out that the evidence of computer print out was never shown nor given to them. Even in terms of Order-in-Original, the computer print out supplies were from Indonesia who was a dealer and therefore, their price will be inclusive of his profit. While, in the present case, the import is directly from the manufacturers and as they have directly imported, their price is bound to be low. Therefore, there is no ground for rejecting the transaction value.
3. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. Shri Arumugam defended the order and pointed out that the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that their item is a natural zeolite and it has lesser value than a synthetic one. Therefore, the price available from computer print out on similar items from Indonesia was rightly compared and therefore, the order is justified including giving of reduction of 30% as discount. He submits that Tribunal has upheld such grant of discounts also held in Cathedral International Vs. CC, Calcutta [2001 (127) ELT 601-Tri.]
4. On a careful consideration of the submission, we are satisfied with the merits of the case. The appellants have imported the item directly from the manufacturers as stated by them. The department relies on computer print out of imports by certain importers at Bombay Part from Indonesia. The time and place and origin of the import is relevant for the purpose of taking such a value into consideration and to reject the transaction value. In the present case, the computer print out was never given to the appellants nor copy was produced to show the relevance of such an import made by other importers from a different supplier. Different places and persons supplying will have different prices. The prices charged by the supplier/dealer are different from the direct supplies made by a manufacturer. There is nothing on record to show that excess money has been paid by the appellants in order to reject the transaction value. The department has not proved their case to enhance the transaction value although there were some evidence of other imports of the item from the same country where the rates are high. There may be several factors governing the higher price in respect of supplies made from Indonesia as it was done by a supplier and not by the manufacturer. Therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Eicher International supra clearly applies to the facts of this case. The transaction value cannot be challenged and in that view of the matter, the judgments cited by Ld. DR of East Region Bench is clearly distinguishable for the purpose of grant of discount. As the department has failed to produce evidence of contemporaneous import from manufacture of the same item, therefore the department’s case fails and the appellants’ contention is required to be accepted by allowing the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open court on 22.5.2001.