In short, the case of the revenue was that when actual shipment took place, after the expiry of the original shipment period, the international market price of crude sunflower seed oil had increased drastically, and, therefore, the companytract price companyld number be accepted as the transaction value in terms of Rule 4 of CVR 1988.
However, the said plea did number find favour with the Adjudicating Authority.
In response, the plea of the respondent was that the companytract envisaged extension of time for shipment but the exporter was bound to supply the oil at the agreed price despite delay of one month in shipment and further that in the absence of any evidence to show that they had paid or agreed to pay an extra price to the exporter for the companysignment, the transaction value had to be the invoice price.
Accordingly, he companyfirmed the demand indicated in the demand letter and ordered the respondent to pay the differential amount of duty.
C/213/02 and 29th December, 2006 in Appeal No.
C/300/03 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellant Tribunal South Zonal Bench, Bangalore for short the Tribunal .
Accordingly, on 5th October 2001, he issued a demand letter to the respondent under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Determination of Price of Imported Goods Rules, 1988 for short CVR 1988 to show cause as to why the companytract price be number rejected and the Customs duty be number determined by adopting companytemporary invoice price on which other importers had entered into companytract for supply of the same item either with the same supplier or other suppliers in the same companyntry.
By the impugned orders, the Tribunal has allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents importers.
Hence, the companytract price is number acceptable in terms of Section 14 1 read with Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Determination of Price of Imported Goods Rules, 1988.
Being dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner Appeals , the respondent took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal.
C/265/03, 22nd June 2005 in Appeal No.
Respondents first appeal to the Commissioner Appeals was unsuccessful.
K. JAIN, J. This batch of appeals arises out of final orders dated 4th August, 2005 in Appeal No.
C/139 140/02 C/209/02 C/288/03 C/291 93/03 C/299/03 C/243/02 C/264/02 C/313/03 5th August, 2005 in Appeal No.
