Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ajay Sharma, Member (J) and Sanjiv Srivastava

ORDER

Ajay Sharma, Member (J)

1. These two Appeals have been filed by Revenue from the common impugned order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I by which the ld. commissioner allowed both the Appeals filed by the respondent herein, set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and directed that the declared price be accepted as transaction value in each case and the bills of entry be reassessed to duty accordingly.

2. In this matter the revenue wants to enhance the declared value of Hot Rolled Coils (HR Coils) on the bases of alleged contemporaneous imports Hot Rolled Plates (HR Plates). The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent herein entered into contract with M/s. Severstal Export Gmbh, Ukraine in the month of May, 2009 for import of two consignments of Hot Rolled Coils (HR Coils) and two bills of entry were filed on 25.8.2009 and 29.7.2009 respectively for clearing two consignments of HR Coils at declared price of US $ 400 per MT and US $ 385 per MT respectively. The adjudicating authority doubted the import value declared by the respondent and granted personal hearing to the respondent. The goods were cleared on the basis of provisional assessments. The Appellant appeared before the adjudicating authority and made their submissions. According to the adjudicating authority since the value of similar goods is available therefore he proceeded to re-determine the value of M.S. Coils in terms of Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007]. On the basis of date of contemporaneous import of HR Steel Plates [which according to the Adjudicating authority is similar goods], the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Assessment dated 3.11.2009 rejected the declared value and direct the assessment at the unit price of USD 460 PMT. On Appeal filed by the respondent herein, the ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 22.1.2010 allowed the Appeal.

3. We have heard ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue and ld. counsel for the respondent and perused the records of the case. Ld. Authorised representative on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the ld. Commissioner erred in accepting the price on the date of Contract & Letter of Credit as a transaction value instead of contemporaneous import price prevailing at the time and place of import. According to him as per section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 value of imported goods shall be transaction value of such goods when sold for export in India for delivery at the time and place of importation and therefore time and place of import is relevant date for valuation of imported goods and not the time and date of contract or agreement or Letter of Credit opening date. In support of his submission he cited the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajkumar Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay; MANU/SC/0985/1998 : 1998(98) ELT 292 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the words 'ordinarily sold or offered for sale' do not refer to contract between the supplier and the importer, but to the prevailing price in the market on the date of importation or the date of exportation. He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai; MANU/SC/4125/2006 : 2006 (202) ELT 561 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that actual price mentioned in the contract between supplier and the importer not to be seen, but the prevailing prices in the market to be seen. Ld. counsel for the Appellant reiterated the findings recorded in the imp........