LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI versus M/S. J.D. ORGOCHEM LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 6 S.C.R. 200 . ~ A COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI v. M/S. J.D. ORGOCHEM LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 5843 of 2006) B APRIL 10, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) • Customs Act, 1960; Ss.2(41), 14(1) and (1A)!Customs Valuation Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, c 1988; rr4 to 8: I Transactional value of imported goods - Levy of Customs duty - Dinitro Crysazine falling under Heading 2914.69 of 1975 Act and 2914.00 of 1944 Act - Assessee importing the goods in question at lesser price than the price D paid in earlier transaction - Transactional value of goods, as declared by the assessee, was rejected by the assessing authority - Affirmed by Appellate authority - Reversed by tribunal - Correctnes.:; of- Held: Correct-Assessing authority as also appellate authority wrongly proceeded on the basis E that onus of proof was on importer - Revenue did not furnish any contemporaneous evidence to the contrary - Assessee categorically informed the assessing authority by furnishing reasons about declining the price of the goods in question in the international market - Assessing Authority declined to F consider the same - Assessee relied on contemporaneous imports from the same supplier which has not been denied! .. ' disputed by the authorities - Thus, appeal lacks merit - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The question which arose for determination in this G appeal was about the extent of jurisdiction of the assessing authority to discard the transactional value of the imported goods as disclosed by the importer/ .. assessee. H 200 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI v. M/S. JD. 201 ORGOCHEM LIMITED Revenue contended that having regard to ,the fact A that the transactions took place between the same parties to the said bill of entry, it is not conceivable that the price of the goods in the international market had fluctuated to the extent mentioned; and that onus of proof, in a case of this nature, would be on the importer only. B Dismi~sing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The assessing authority as also the · appellate authority have wrongly proceeded on the basis that the onus of proof was on the importer. If that c conclusion is not premised on any legal principle and the revenue having not brought on records any contemporaneous evidence to the contrary it cannot be said to have discharged its burden. (Para - 14) [206-E] 1.2 Recourse to the Rules 5 to 8 of the Customs D Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules are to be resorted to if the transaction value cannot be determined in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act. (Para - 16) [207 -8] 2.1 The assessee categorically informed the E assessing authority that in the international market the raw material prices were declining every day. Before the said authority even instances were given in regard to the ~ . subsequent transactions to show that the 'shipper' had 1 • further reduced the prices of the goods in question. Value F of the said goods, according to the respondent, was declining because of the fact that ~here is more supply and demand is less in the international market. Yet again the assessee by term of another letter assigned a large number of reasons how they have got the most G competitive offer from the overseas principal as was explained during personal hearing. The assessing authority did not consider the said contentions and dismissed the appeal. (Paras - 17 & 18) [207-8, C, D, E] H 202 SUPREME COURT RcPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R. A 2.2 In this case the importer in fact relied on contemporaneous imports from the same supplier, which has not been denied or disputed. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. (Paras - 20 & 21) [210-8, C] Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 8 Mumbai:2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. South India Television (P) Ltd. : 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) - relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. c 5843 of 2006. D E From the Final Order No. A/222/WZB/06.C.ll. (C.S.T.B.) dated 24.2.2006 of the Customs. Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No. C/973/00-Mum Krishna Kumar, P. Narasimha and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. Tarun Gulatgi, Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai, K. Rajeev, Jaiveer Shergill and Ankit. Goyal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.