(1) THESE appeals are against the order dated March 4/03/1991 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CEGAT, in Appeal No. C/3339/88A, C/3340/88A, C3341/88A and C3342/88A. Respondents are dealers and im- porters of various bearings and they imported one consignment of ball bear- ings No. 2301, 2313 and 2313 (Sic) of Hungarian Origin from M/s. Mak Automotive Company, London (U.K.). Price List No. 8302238 was issued by the Hungarian Manufacturers on 16/02/1982. Another price list being 840216 was also issued by the said Hungarian Manufacturers. On the basis of the complaint received from the Ball and Bearings Association of India inter alia alleging that the respondent had been indulging in importing ball bearings by showing invoice price grossly undervalued, show cause notices were issued to the respondents proposing to enhance the value from .90 US dollar and 2.15 US dollar to 2.45 US dollar and 8.11 US dollar respectively. The respondents made a representation and inter alia contended that there had been no undervaluation and the invoice price reflected the correct price at which the said bearings had been imported.
(2) BY order dated. 20/03/1987, the Collector of Customs accepted the invoice prices to be correct. The appellant thereafter filed the aforesaid appeals before the CEGAT against the orders passed by the Collector. By the impugned orders, the CEGAT accepted the invoice price being the correct price at which the goods had been imported and the case of undervaluation on the basis of which show cause proceedings were initiated. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. It may be stated here that the respondents in support of their contention also filed the certificate issued by embassy of the countries from which the ball bearings had been imported for the purpose of showing that the price reflected in the invoices were the latest price of the commodity in question in that country.
(3) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that CEGAT was unjustified in making a wide observation to the following effect :
"IT is also equally settled that in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import of like kind of goods at higher prices the invoice price should be the basis for the assessable value under Section 14."
--- *** ---
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the law has not been settled to the effect that there is an obligation on the part of the department to produce documents by way of evidence to show contemporaneous import of like kind of goods at higher price for the purpose of establishing that the invoice was undervalued. It has been submitted that such statement as a legal proposition is likely to affect decisions in other cases. We have looked into the impugned judgment passed by the CEGAT. It appears to us that in the instant case, the CEGAT has considered the material before it and has accepted the invoice price to be the correct price and not a product of undervaluation. It is only in that context the aforesaid observation was made which according to us was only intended to mean that if a dispute is raised, despite evidences about the correct prices of invoices being filed by the importer, it would be necessary to produce the evidence of alleged higher price of the commodity imported by producing contemporaneous import documents justifying the assertion that goods imported were costlier than the price shown in the disputed invoice. It does not appear to us that any general proposition has been laid down by the CEGAT by making the aforesaid observation. As it appears to us that the decision of the CEGAT is correct and no interference in these appeals are called for, the same are dismissed.