ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the value of the copper dross imported by the respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner, declared of U.S. $ 1,200 per M.T. was found not to be acceptable by the Additional Commissioner for the reason that the goods were declared initially to be copper dross of 45% purity whereas the copper content of the dross found to be on test, to be around 95%. The Additional Commissioner found that copper ingots had been imported at a value of U.S. $ 2000/- per M.T. and hence valued the dross at U.S. $ 1,900/- per M.T., the difference in the value being on account of the lower content of copper in the dross. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has said that the method of valuation determined by the Additional Commissioner is wrong and declined to uphold in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods, the enhancement of value.
2. We have heard the departmental representative. Respondent is absent and unrepresented.
3. The declared value of the copper dross on the basis that it contains 45% copper would not be acceptable as the test shows it to contain copper far in excess of this percentage – more than twice in fact. Accordingly, Additional Commissioner was correct in not accepting the transaction value. This however, does not mean that he would be correct in applying the value to this product of copper ingots. Ingots and dross are entirely a different commodities. The Additional Commissioner has erased this distinction by treating dross, for the purpose of valuation, as if it were copper ingots of 95% purity. It is to be kept in mind that there would be expenses involved in processing the copper dross so as to obtain pure copper. If, as contended by the departmental representative, the value has been arrived according to Rule 7A of the Valuation Rules. It has to be shown that the rules preceding this rule could not apply. It appears that there was no contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods. We cannot say with any certainty that even if there were contemporaneous import, Rules 5 and 6 would not apply, and that Rule 7 and 7A will have to be applied. We are, therefore, of the view that the valuation would have to be arrived at afresh.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed, impugned order set aside. Additional Commissioner shall determine the value in accordance with the law and in keeping with the principles in the valuation rules.