ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The respondents had imported numerous consignments of ‘Heavy Melting Scrap’ (for short, HMS) and ‘Light Melting Scrap’ (for short, LMS) on the strength of Advance Licences and claimed assessment on the basis of declared values. The Department rejected this claim and proposed to enhance the value to USD 110 PMT for HMS and to USD 100 PMT for LMS on the basis of Customs-recorded price of scrap imported and cleared through the same port by other regular importers. The goods were assessed as proposed. In respect of some Bills of Entry, the respondents paid the assessed duty under protest, while, in respect of other Bills of Entry, their payments of duty was not expressly under protest. Their objection to the enhancement of value was not sustained by the original authority which confirmed the above valuation under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. In respect of the Bills of Entry, in relation to which duty was paid without explicit protest, the original authority also took the view that the assessments had become final with the elapse of the period of limitation for appeal. The orders of the original authority were taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority allowed the appeals after finding that there was no valid reason to discard the transaction value (declared value) of the goods. The orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are presently under challenge in these appeals of the Revenue.
2. Heard both sides. Ld. JDR reiterated the grounds of the appeals. Ld. Consultant resisted these grounds and submitted that it was not open to the Department to enhance the value of the scrap imported by the respondents, on the basis of value of scrap imported by other parties inasmuch as the scrap imported by one party was not comparable to that imported by another party.
3. After considering the submissions carefully, we find that the contention raised by ld. Consultant is irresistible. The Revenue has not placed on record any material to show that the scrap imported by the respondents was identical or similar to the scrap chosen as standard i.e., the scrap (imported by the third parties) which was mentioned in the Customs data. Further, as rightly held by the lower appellate authority, no valid reason has been put forward by the Department for discarding the declared value (transaction value). We are in complete agreement with ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in observing that any Customs House practice of loading the price of imported goods without reference to quantity, place and time of import etc. has to be rejected when it is contrary to statutory provisions. It was held by the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] that, before proceeding to determine the value of imported goods under Rules 5 to 8 sequentially, the transaction value declared by the importer had to be discarded on valid grounds. In the instant case, no reason whatsoever was cited by the Revenue to reject the transaction value of the scrap imported by the respondents. Therefore, the transaction value had to be accepted under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act as held by the lower appellate authority. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
4. The appeals are dismissed.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open Court on 10-2-2005)