ORDER
V.K. Agrawal
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Vaibhav Textiles, the issue involved is whether the transaction value declared by them is to be accepted for the purpose of assessment of Customs duty.
2. Sh. Piyush Kumar, ld. consultant, submitted that the appellant imported a consignment of Polyester Fabrics and filed Bill of Entry on 11.8.2000; that the assessable value of the goods was declared as R. 10,97,152.60 on the basis of invoice dated 26.6.2000 issued by M/s Capital World Trading Ltd. Taiwan; that the Commissioner, Customs under the impugned order, enhanced the value on the basis of imports made by M/s Naveen Enterprises under Bill of Entry No. 111548 dated 20.9.2000; that the Commissioner, therefore, confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants. The ld. advocate, further, submitted that in the show-cause notice, the department had relied upon two consignments of similar goods of Taiwan origin which were imported by M/s SBS Impex and M/s Naveen Enterprises; that the Commissioner have his clear finding in the impugned order that the goods imported by M/s SBS Impex do not have “like characteristic and like component material” in view of the fact that the fabrics imported by M/s SBS Impex had undergone the process of anti-pilling. He further mentioned that the fabric imported by Naveen Textile is also different from the fabric imported by the appellants; that the description of the goods imported by them is “100% polyester warp knit raised fabric (non-pile), width 58/60”, 220 GSM + OR – 5%; that whereas the fabric imported by Naveen Enterprises is having GSM 275 as against GSM 220 of the fabric imported by them and the fabric imported by Naveen Enterprises is striped fabric as against plain fabric imported by them; that, moreover, the fabric imported by Naveen Enterprises has undergone the process of anti-pilling. He, therefore, submitted that in view of these facts there is no reason for not accepting the transaction value declared by them. He emphasised that it is well established in law that for the purpose of comparison of value the goods should be similar in respect of physical characteristic quality, reputation and country of origin and timing of import and in the present case not only the goods differ in quality and characteristic but also in respect of timing of import and nature of transaction.
3. Sh. S.P. Rao, ld. DR, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order. He emphasised that the Commissioner has given his findings that the appellants had not demonstrated or reasoned out as to how and why strip variety would result in material difference in relation to characteristic and component material; that Commissioner also has given his findings that the appellants had not substantiated their plea that the goods imported by M/s Naveen Enterprises had undergone the process of anti-pilling and were made of spun yarn.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 provides that the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value. As per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules the transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India. The price in the impugned matter has been determined under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules which provides for determination of the value on the basis of transaction value of similar goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued. Similar goods means imported goods which have like characteristic and like component materials. The appellants have shown from a copy of the invoice under which the goods were received by M/s Naveen Enterprises that the goods were not of like characteristic and like component materials inasmuch as the GSM of the fabric was different and the fabric imported by Naveen Enterprises had undergone the process of anti-pilling. In view of his own findings in respect of import made by M/s SBS Impex and further in view of the invoice of the goods imported by Naveen Enterprises clearly indicating in the description that the goods are anti-pilling, it cannot be said that the said goods are having like characteristics and like component material.
Accordingly, the assessable value cannot be determined on the basis of goods imported by M/s Naveen Enterprises. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.