M/S. RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL & ANR. versus COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 954 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 9 S.C.R. 954 
-A 
MIS. RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL & ANR. 
v. 
.... 
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI 
(Civil Appeal No. 2700 of 2006) 
B 
MAY 6, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962 I Customs Valuations Rules, 1988 -
s.14(1)/rr.4 and 5 -
Imported goods -
Value of -
c Determination - Basis for - Department assessing the value 
of goods in question on the basis of the price at which the 
goods were ordinarily sold at the relevant time - Claim of 
importer for determination of the value on the basis of tfle 
price at which contract was entered into - Held: The basis for 
D the determination of the value by department is correct and 
is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 
The question for consideration in the present appeal 
was as regards determination of value of imported 
E goods; i.e. whether the price of goods at the time df, 
computation should be the deciding factor. or it should 
be the price, agreed upon by the parties. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
• .-
F 
HELD: 1. The provisions of Section 14(1) of Customs 
Act, 1962 would prevail when the transaction value 
required to be determined under Rule 4 of Customs 
Valuation Rules, 1988 does not reflect the price at which 
such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale 
G for delivery at the time and place of importation. There 
cannot be any dispute with regard to said interpretation 
"""' 
that it is the provision which will always prevail. The 
deemed value contemplated u/s. 14(1) would prevail 
when the price declared does not reflect the price at 
-
H 
954 
RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
955 
(ADJUDICATION}, MUMBAI 
-., 
which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered A 
'.'"-
for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation. 
Under Rule 5, it is inter alia provided that the value of 
imported goods shall be the transaction value of identical 
goods sold for export to India and imported on or about 
the same time, good being valued subject to provisions B 
of rule 3. It is also provided in the said rule that in 
applying the said rule, the transaction value of identical 
goods and sale at the same commercial level and 
substantially of the same quantity, would be used to 
determine the value of the imported goods. [Para 20] [966- c 
.. 
A-E] 
-
2. In present case the appellant although claimed a 
transaction value, but such value could not be supported 
by production of the original contract or the invoices 
D 
relating to procurement of cloves to the appellant under 
" 
the ten Bills of Entry in question. The said documents 
were called for and were directed to be produced, but 
same could not be produced. The alleged contract dated 
23.11.2000 cannot be termed as a contract between the 
t 
parties and it is merely a certificate issued by the E 
• 
Company whose nature of business is primarily dealing 
with sport goods and not cloves. There is also a reference 
" 
of the document on record particularly the relevant bill of 
~ 
lading which indicates import of the cloves at the price 
of US Dollars 5600 PMT. It has also come in evidence that F 
9.5648 MTs cloves of Indonesian origin shipped from 
Singapore under bill of entry dated 8.5.2001 were bought 
at the rate of US Dollars 5500. The said consignment was 
shipped on 25.2.2001 as per the bill of lading. Another 
consignment of 9.300 MTs of cloves of Comoros origin G 
_, 
was also imported at the same unit price. A table of 
imports made by the appellants in the Bill of Entry in 
question is placed on record. The evidence therefore 
which exist on record clearly support the findings and the 
conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner of Customs H 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
'--
A 
. 
(Adjudication), and also by the Tribunal. The findings and 
.. 
conclusions cannot be said to be perverse. They are 
--
based on cogent reasons which are found to be forceful 
and reasonable. [Para 21 and 23] [966-F-G; 967-E-H] 
B 
3. It is, therefore, conclusively proved that the 
Department correctly imposed proper assessment value 
on the goods in question imported by the appellant. The 
said value for the purpose of assessment of the goods 
had been correctly arrived at in accordance with the 
c provisions of Customs Acts, 1962 and Customs 
I 
Valuation Rules, 1988 framed thereunder particularly in 
.-
accordance with Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. [Para 24] 
[968-A-B] 
-
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.