JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. The extent of jurisdiction of the assessing officer to discard the transactional value disclosed by the importer is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th February, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai.

2. Respondent herein filed a bill of entry dated 27th October, 1999 for clearance of "4,5 Dinitro Crysazine". The said goods fall under Heading 2914.69 and 2914.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Central Excise Tariff, 1944 respectively. The unit price of the said goods was declared at US$ 13.2 per kg.

3. Allegedly the respondent had imported the same goods from the same supplier earlier @ US$ 18.7 per kg.

4, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs in his order dated 22nd March, 2000 opined that the transactional value declared by the importer should be rejected and Rule 5 of the GATT Valuation Rules, 1988 shall be applied ordering to load the value to US$ 18.7 per kg. It was directed that the bill of entry should be assessed accordingly.

5. On an appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent, the Appellate Authority being the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) affirmed the said findings in terms of his order dated 3rd August, 2000. By its judgment the appellate authority rejected the contention of the appellant that the onus was on the department to show that the invoice price was not genuine and arrived at the conclusion that since the respondent was the only importer of the said goods, they were the best person to obtain conclusive proof of downward pricing pattern in the international market.

However, on an appeal preferred by the respondent thereagainst, by reason of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal allowed the same holding :-

"3. We find that in the present case the appellant is the only importer of the goods in question and there are no contemporaneous imports. The appellant has given justifiable reasons for reduced prices of the same goods from the same importer for the subsequent imports. They have also contended that the future imports have been done at still lower prices which stands accepted by the customers. As such, we are of the view that in the absence of any on (sic) justifiable reason to reject the same and enhance the assessable value."

6. Mr. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that having regard to the fact that the transactions took place between the same parties to the said bill of entry dated 27th October, 1999, it is not conceivable that the price of the goods in the international market had fluctuated to the aforementioned extent. Onus of proof, it was urged, in a case of this nature, would be on the importer only. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Punjab Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs : 2003 (157) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.).

7. Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment.

8. Before embarking on the question raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we may notice the relevant statutory provisions.

9. Section 2(41), Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they stood at the relevant time, read as under :-:

"2(41) "value", in relation to any goods, means the value thereof determined in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14;

14. Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment. –

(1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade, where the seller and the buyer