ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. We are concerned in this appeal of the value of the Imco brand nickel square imported by the respondent to this appeal. This application is by the department questioning the legality and propriety of the Collector (Appeals) holding that it is the price in the contract between the seller and the buyer of the goods which should form basis of the assessable value.
2. We have heard both sides.
3. The contention of the departmental representative that, by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Knitting Mills v. CCE (sic) CC , if the price at which such or like goods were sold that would be the assessable value, has to be accepted. The Supreme Court had held that Section 12(1)(a)(sic) 14(1)(a) of the Act provides that the relevant date for valuation of goods is the date of importation or exportation and that the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the goods on this date that should be applied, and not the price on the date mentioned in the contract for supply of the goods. Accordingly the consideration whether the goods were supplied in pursuance to the contract or not is irrelevant.
4. Both sides are agreed the prices of contemporaneously imported goods now cited in the department’s appeal is not referred to in the Asst. Collector’s order. It is not entirely clear whether these prices were communicated to the importer or not. Importer had waived written notice. Accordingly we accept the prayer made by both sides that the matter should be sent back to the Asst. Commissioner for communicating to the respondent details of contemporaneous imports. On this being done, the importer should be given opportunity to produce such evidence as is considered necessary to rebut this contention. In other words both sides are entitled to produce relevant evidence. Thereafter the Asst. Commissioner shall determine the value according to law.
5. The Asst. Collector whose order was upheld by the order Collector (Appeals) had included US $ 350 PMT in the assessable value of the goods on the ground that it was premium on account of “freight, insurance, incidental charges, profit on premium etc.” We are not clear what is meant by incidental charges and profit on premium. These figures should not form part of the assessable value. The CIF value is to be determined on the basis of prices to be contemporaneously imported goods or otherwise upon the principles of valuation as laid down in the law.
6. Appeal accordingly allowed and impugned order set aside.
(Dictated in Court).
