ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The respondent to this appeal imported in October-November, 1997 quantity of tin plate waste from a supplier from Australia declaring their FOB value to be Australian $ 400 per ton. The department was of the view that the value was too low, having regard to the fact that at or about this period, the importer imported tin plate waste from Norway and France at higher prices ranging from US $ 380 per ton C & I. The importer having waived the issue of written notice was heard by the Assistant Commissioner and passed orders enhancing the value of the goods to US $ 400 per ton in respect of some bills of entry and US $ 450 per ton in respect of some other bills of entry.
2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals), on his view that the goods under consideration had been wrongly compared the goods which were neither similar nor identical and noting the existence of other goods at the value claimed by the importer, accepted this value, allowing the importer’s appeal. The appeal by the Commissioner is against this order.
3. The appeal seeks to support the Assistant Commissioner’s order on the ground that the value has been enhanced to the value noticed on contemporaneous imports. The departmental representative relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Chandni International v. CC, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 312 (T) = 2003 (55) RLT 635. He draws our particular attention to the part that in that decision the Tribunal, despite its attention being drawn to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Eicher Tracters v. CC, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2000 (41) RLT 621 has still held that the transaction value was not acceptable but applies Rule 10A. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CC v. Shibani Engineering Systems -1996 (86) E.L.T. 453.
4. Mr. Bhagwandas Dhanji, who represents the respondent cites the decision of the Supreme Court in Richer Tractors v. CC, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2000 (41) RLT 621 and points out to the fact that other imports by Famous Enterprises has been accepted at the same price as the respondent’s goods.
5. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors v. CC, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2000 (41) RLT 621 is that in the absence of any exception provided in the proviso under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules does not apply, the transaction value must be applied. The transaction value is defined as the price paid or payable for the goods, and, therefore, unless it is shown that the value shown in the invoice is not that the transaction value and where none of the exceptions specified in the proviso under Rule 4(2) applies, it is that value that has to be applied. In the decision of the Tribunal that the departmental representative cites, the goods were imported in December, 1998 i.e. after Rule 10A was added to the Valuation Rules. It is this rule that the Tribunal has relied upon in concluding that the declared value was not acceptable. We are concerned with the imports made in 1997 before Rule 10A was enacted. The decision therefore is no help to the departmental representative. The Supreme Court’s judgment in CC v. Shibani Engineering Systems, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 453 was passed much prior to the decision in Eicher Tractors v. CC.
6. In addition, it is to be noted that the goods under consideration were imported from Australia whereas the goods that the Assistant Commissioner has considered were imported from countries in Europe. These goods are therefore neither identical goods specified in Rule 5 nor similar goods specified in Rule 6. In point of fact, we are not able to perceive any ratio relating to the value in the judgment of the Supreme Court in CC v. Shibani Engineering Systems, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 453. In Paragraph 11 of the order, the Court has said that the Collector was rejecting the transaction value because “plainly, it was a totally unrealistic value”. Apart from this the fact also remains that the judgment in CC v. Shibani Engineering Systems was passed earlier and it is settled law that the latter judgment of the Supreme Court has the precedent in preference to the earlier one. We do not find existence of absurdly unrealistic price here. The quantities totally imported by the appellant in nine consignments were in pursuance of one order as claimed by the representative of the importer, imported from Europe, the goods that the Commissioner compared are of larger quantities of 63 tons and there are consignments of 21 tons etc. The substantial difference in the quantity made would have prompted a reduction in the price by taking the lowest value of US$ 380 which comes around Rs. 5,000/- per ton. (We have in the absence of details relating to the exchange rate at the relevant time apply the current exchange rate of US$ to Rs. 45/- and A$ to Rs. 31/-. We do not find the difference so significant as to say that the price of the imported goods under consideration is absurd. We therefore do not find any ground for interference.
7. Appeal dismissed.