M/S. Gira Enterprises & Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad

2. The appellants imported two consignments of “2-4-6 Tricloro 1-3-5 Triazine” aggregating 74.10 MT from China under two Bills of Entry, the cost of which is declared by the appellants to be SG $ 750/- PMT equivalent to US $ 500/- PMT. The goods were provisionally assessed and allowed clearance on 17.9.1994.

4. It is also stated in the show cause notice that the goods imported by the appellants were subjected to a test in the Central Excise & Customs Laboratory, Baroda. According to the show cause notice, the chemical name of the goods was verified and it was found to be “Cyanuric Chloride” as known in the International market. It is further stated in the show cause notice that on the basis of certain information obtained through a computer print out from the Customs House, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat noticed that a large number of Cyanuric Chloride(100) import transactions (between the months of June 1994 to November 1994) took place and the cost of the unit price in each one of those imports was US $ 1950/- PMT(CIF) as against the value declared by the appellants of US $ 500/- PMT.

5. The appellants filed a detailed reply dated 11.12.2000 wherein they disputed their liability to make any further payment as indicated in the show cause notice. The appellants also took a specific stand that a copy of the computer print out which formed the basis of show cause notice had not been supplied to the appellants.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein carried the matter in an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals). By an order dated 8.8.2001, the said appeal was allowed wherein the appellate authority recorded “the method of determination of the assessable value as per Rule 5 lacks specific evidence, therefore, the same is not legal and proper”.

8. Revenue carried the matter in further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 15.2.2002, the said Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). On such remittance, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the enhancement of the value at US $ 1860 PMT CIF. Again, the matter was carried by the appellants to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal unsuccessfully. By an order dated 23.8.2005, which was impugned in the instant appeal, the appeal of the appellants herein was dismissed by the Tribunal.

(2) Where the costs and changes referred to in sub-rule(2) of Rule 9 of these rules are included in the transaction value of identical goods, an adjustment shall be made, if there are significant differences in such costs and charges between the goods being valued and the identical goods in question arising from differences in distances and means of transport.

25. The impugned order and the original assessment order are therefore, set aside. However, it will be open to the respondent(revenue) to proceed against the appellants herein pursuant to the show cause notice dated 25.9.2000 in accordance with law.

26. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

August 21, 2014

[1] 3. Determination of the method of valuation – For the purpose of these rules-

(i) the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value.

[3] (ii) if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of clause (i) above, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of these Rules.

[4] (2) The transaction value of imported goods under sub-rule(1) above shall be accepted: