Holding

Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 prevails and the Department correctly determined the value of the imported cloves using market prices and the transaction value of identical goods, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Summary

The appellants imported bulk cloves and claimed that the customs duty should be assessed on the contract price of US$2600 per metric ton, which they alleged was the transaction value. The Customs Department, relying on Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules 4, 5 and 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, determined that the contract price did not reflect the price at which like goods were ordinarily sold and instead used market prices (US$5500‑5600 per MT) and the transaction value of identical goods to assess duty, impose a fine and penalties. The appellants failed to produce the original contract and the document presented was merely a certificate, leading the Tribunal and the Commissioner to uphold the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed that Section 14(1) prevails over the transaction value when the latter does not reflect ordinary market prices, and that the Department correctly applied Rule 5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

The appropriate basis for determining the value of imported goods: contract price (transaction value) versus the price at which like goods are ordinarily sold under Section 14(1).
The applicability of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules when the declared transaction value is not reflective of market price.

Legislation cited

Customs Act, 1962s. 112(a), s. 130E, s. 14(1), s. 14(1A), s. 46, s. 4(7)

Subjects

customs valuationtransaction valueSection 14undervaluationimport dutyRule 5Customs ActCustoms Valuation Rules

Judgment

[2009) 9 S.C.R. 954

-A MIS. RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL & ANR.
v. ....
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI
(Civil Appeal No. 2700 of 2006)

MAY 6, 2009
B
[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
goods; i.e. whether the price of goods at the time df,
E
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
for delivery at the time and place of importation. There
G
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
relating to procurement of cloves to the appellant under D
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
Valuation Rules, 1988 framed thereunder particularly in .- I

accordance with Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. [Para 24]
[968-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
-
D 2700 of 2006.

From the Judgment & Order dated 8.3.2006 of the
Customs Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; New Delhi in
Appeal Nos. 168 and 169 of 2004.
E Rajiv Dutta, M.F. Humayunisa Kumar, Dushyant Singh and \

-;
R. Nedumaran for the Appellants.

A. Mariyaputham, B. Sunita Rao, Vimal Dubey and Anil ...
Katiyar for the Respondents. >-

F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. · 1. The present Civil
Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 130E of the
Customs Act, 1962. The appeal is directed against the
G impugned judgment and order dated 8.3.2006 passed by the ~

._
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
(hereinafter 'the Tribunal' whereby and whereunder the
adjudication order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the
Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai was upheld
.......
H and whereby the Tribunal dismissed both the appeals preferred
RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 957
(ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

by the appellants holding that the appellant was fully aware and A
was made known about the materials placed C'3fore the
... authority and he had full opportunity to deal with the documents
submitted by the witness. The Tribunal upheld and confirmed
the reasoning and the conclusions of the Commissioner for
passing the order dated 31.12.2003. By the aforesaid order B
passed by the Tribunal, a fine of Rs. 5 lacs in lieu of confiscation
of the goods and penalty of Rs. 10 lacs was imposed on the
appellant firm, and also a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed on
Ratanlal under the provision of Section 112(a) of the Customs
Act imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) c
was upheld.

- 2. The entire proceeding arises out of a contract of
importation of cloves of the bulk quantity of 300 MTs at US
Dollars 2600 PMT CIF, Mumbai. It was alleged that the
appellants herein entered into a contract with Mis. Ketan D
Trading Company, Singapore on 23.11.2000 for import ~of
If
cloves. The goods were described as 'cloves-Zanzibar/
Indonesia' meaning thereby cloves of Zanzibar/Indonesian origin
of the bulk quantity of 300 MTs at US Dollars 2600 PMT CIF
Mumbai. E

3. The aforesaid contract dated 23.11.2000 for the above-
mentioned quantity of cloves was registered with the Customs

-• Department by the appellants in the course of which three bills
of entry were filed by appellants for clearance of part shipment
declaring the contract price as the invoice price.
F

Again, for further imports seven more bills of entry were
filed by the appellants in terms of the direction of the
respondent. The appellants paid the .Price at the enhanced
price. G

4. The Customs House initiated an investigation into the
import of cloves included in all ten bills of entry. The Customs
Department alleged that during the investigation. it was
. revealed that the aforesaid goods were invoiced by Mis. Ketan H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.

A Trading Co., Singapore at Unit Price of US Dollars 2600 PMT
'\;'C '
CIF, Mumbai although the prevailing international price of cloves .1-
during the relevant period (in the month of January-February, I
2001) was around US Dollars 5500 which reached to US
Dollars 6500 PMT by the end of Febn~ary-and beginning of r-
1/

B March, 2001 and that the cloves were not traded at a price less '
than US Dollars 4200 PMT during the year 2000 except in the
beginning of January, 2000. .
5. It was also alleged that in order to avoid deterioration
c of goods, the appellants as directed by the Department,
deposited the amount towards enhanced price. The Bill of Entry \
~

was provisionally a.>sessed and out of charge order under
Section 4 7 of the Act was passed. After that the goods were
stored in a warehouse at Vashi in its general section.
--l

>
~

D 6. It was further alleged that the imports made by M/s.
Spices Trading Corporation of India established that cloves of
Indonesian and Comoros origin were shipped from Singapore
at the rate of US Dollars 5500 PMT (CIF) to Nhava Bills of Entry
·.!!fated 10.5.2001 and 8.5.2001. The case of the Customs is also
E that Bulletin of Spices Market published by the trade information
services of Spices Board of the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India indicated that the prices of cloves

F
were ranging from US Dollars 4490 to US Dollars 6010
between 17.11.2000 to 23.2.2001. ••
7. Further evidence was also collected indicating that as
per the Public Ledger, an international publication of repute, the
CIF European Port prices of cloves were ranging from US
Dollars 4400 to US Dollars 6300 between 6.11.2000 and
26.3.2001. It was also indicated that several of the importers
G admitted that the cloves were imported by them at various
~~
prices ranging between US Dollars 5050 to US Dollars 5500
during the aforementioned relevant period. During the course
of investigation, the partner of the appellant was also
~·
questioned. In that process, he admitted that the original
H
RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 959
(ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
? contract was with Mis. Ketan Trading Co., Singapore for supply A
... of 300 MTs and il was signed in November, 2UOO and that he
- was having only a photocopy of the said contract. He stated
that the international market price of cloves in the beginning of
'
2001 was only US Dollars 2900 to US Dollars 3000 and that
(

• in February, March-April the price went up to US Dollars 5000 B
depending upon the quality. As regards the invoice bearing No.
624/2K- 01 dated 7.2.2001 issued Mis. IJIM ASIA in the name
.~
of Mis. Ketan Trading Co. showing consignment of 24.538 MTs,
of cloves at the rate of US Dollars 5600, he stated that one
consignment was imported by him under bill of entry dated c
24.2.2001, which was the same consignment mentioned and
shown against invoice dated 7.2.2001.
r•
8. It was also stated that while seeking clearance the
quantity declared was 23.488 MTs, but on actual examination
D
the consignment was found to be in excess by 1.05 MTs
" .•j confirming the correctness of the quantity mentioned as per
invoice dated 7.2.2001 i.e. 24.538 MTs.

9. It was therefore submitted by the department that there
is foolproof evidence to suggest undervaluation in the import E
of cloves by the appellant with intent to evade customs duty. A
Show Cause Notice was issued by the Department on
• 27.2.200.2 to which reply was also received. Appellants
-< requested for supply of certain documents. The aforesaid
request was acceded to by the Department and personal F
hearing was also given to the appellants. The appellants also

- filed their written submission. Thereafter, an order was passed
on 13.2.2003 by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication)
holding that the value for the purpose of assessment of tbe.
cloves imported under four Bills of Entry should be US Dollars G
~ 5500 PMT and for the balance six Bills of Entry, the value for
the assessment of the cloves imported by the Appellants should
be @US$ 5600 PMT (CIF).

10. Aggrieved by the abovesaid order dated 31.12.2003,
....' H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A the Appellant Company preferred an Appeal in the Tribunal on \.
various grounds.
~~

11. Apart from the aforesaid appeal filed by the appellant,
another appeal No. 169 of 2004 was preferred by the partner
of the appellant Company in the same Tribunal. The Tribunal
B
heard the parties and thereafter by an Order dated 8.3.2006
dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant and its
partner. ,;it.

12. Still aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the '
c appellant challenging the orders passed by the Adjudicating
Authority as also by the Tribunal.

13. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, the learned senior counsel appearing ~;

for the appellant submitted before us that the transaction value
D which the appellant could establish by producing· relevant )-
•,
documents should have been accepted by the respondent. It ·')

was also submitted by him that the transaction value was based \._

on the price agreed upon which was contractual in nature, and
'~
therefore, the said price should have been accepted as value
of the goods and having not done so, the impugned orders are
E
required to be set aside. His further submission was that, the
Public Ledger or Weekly Bulletin should not have been
considered as of any evidentiary value in the matter under
consideration.
JI>
,,.
F 14. The aforesaid submission of the counsel appearing for
the appellant was however refuted by the learned counsel
appearing for the Commissioner of Customs. His submission >-
was that ~he appellant could not produce the original contract
said to have been entered into between Mis. Ketan Trading
G Company and the appellant in which the price of the goods was
allegedly agreed upon at US Dollars 2600 PMT. He pointed "'- ·~·
out that the document dated 23.11.2000 of Mis. Ketan Trading
Co. is not a contract and therefore no reliance could and should
be placed on the said document to arrive at a finding that in
fact the appellant had supplied the aforesaid cloves for Ketan
,
H --
RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 961
• (ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
)
Trading Company at US Dollars 2600 PMT. He also submitted A
that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the
.....
----J
Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) as well as by the
Tribunal are findings of fact and the same should not be
t interfered with by this Court.
B
15. In the light of the aforesaid submissions we have
perused the documents on record. A perusal of the relevant
~ documents would indicate that the issue that arises for our
consideration is as to how the value of the goods, in question,
was to be computed. In other words whether the price of goods
at the time of computation should be the "deciding fac;:tor in
c
arriving at the value of the goods or it is the price agreed upon
by the parties.

16. In order to substantiate the claims and the rejection of
the said claims, reference was made to the provisions of D
~-

~
Sections 14(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 and
Rule 5 and Rule 1OA of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

The said provisions being relevant, material part thereof
are extracted herein below.
E
Section 14: Valuation of goods. -- (1)For the purposes of
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law
l
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 F
which such of 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 -
),
G
(a) the seller and the buyer have no interest in the
business of each other; or

(b) one of them has no interest in the business of the
other,
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer
for sale

Provided that such price shall be calculated with reference ._
to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a I-
bill of entry is presented under section 46, or a shipping
B
·bill or bill of export, as the case may be, is presented under
section so;

1(A) Subject to the provisions of sub-section ( 1), the price
referred to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods
c shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in
this behalf.

o,
The relevant Rules are Rules 4, 5 and 1OA qf the Customs ,...
"'.>'.

Valuation Rules, 1988, which are reproduced hereunder:

Rule 4. Transaction value• .;.;. (1) The transaction value
E of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or
payable for the goods when sold for export to India,
adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of
these rules. y

(2) The transaction value of imported goods under sub- rule
F (1) above shall be accepted: ...
Provided that -

(a) the sale is in the ordinary course of trade under fully
competitive conditions; •·
G ,.... '
(b) the sale does not involve any abnormal discount or
reduction from the ordinary competitive price;

(c) the sale does not involve special discounts limited to
H exclusive agents;

)-
I
RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 963
' . (ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
' -
)< (d) objective and quantifiable data exist with regard to the A
adjustm_ents required to be made, under the provisions of
rule 9, to the transaction value.

- (e) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of
the goods by the buyer other than restrictions which
B
(i) are imposed or required by law or by the public
authorities in India; or
""--
(ii) limit the geographical area in which the goods may be
• resold; or c
---.. (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods;

(f) the sale or price is not subject to same condition or
consideration for which a value cannot be determined in
respect of the goods being valued; D
y

~ (g) no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale,
disposal or use of the goods by the buyer will accrue.
directly or indirectly to the seller, unless an appropriate
adjustment can be made in accordance with the provisions E
of Rule 9 of these rules; and ·
=-
(h) the buyer and seller are not related, or where the buyer
\ and seller are related, that transaction value is acceptable
I
for customs purposes under the provisions of sub-rule (3)
below. F

Rule 5. Transaction value of identical goods. -- (1 )(a) G
... Subject to the provisions of Rule 3 of these rules, the value
of imported goods shall be the transaction value of
identical goods sold for export to India and imported at or
about .the same time as the goods being valued.
H
RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 965
(ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-,
).
by M/s. Ketan Trading Co. The said letter is a certificate issued A
by Mis. Ketan Trading Company in favour of the appellant I
confirming that they had sold to the appellant, cloves of
Zanzibar, Indonesia and Cameroon origin at US Dollars 2600
PMT CIF, Mumbai of a quantity of about 300 MTs. A bare
perusal of the said document would indicate that the same is B
not a contract which was entered upon between the parties and
it is merely a certificate issued by M/s. Ketan Trading Co. in
favour of the appellant.

19. We have extracted hereinbefore, the relevant part of
the provision of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Customs Act and the c
relevant part of Rule 4, Rule 5 and Rule 1OA of the Customs
Valuation Rules. Section 14 of the Act relates to valuation of
goods for the purpose of assessment and inter alia provides
that the value of any goods chargeable to duty of customs would
be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are D
"..f ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and
place of importation in the course of international trade where
the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each
other or one of them has no interest in the business of the other
and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for E
sale. By inserting sub-Section (1A) of Section 14 which was
inserted with effect from 16.8.1988, it was provided that subject
' to the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 14, the price
' referred to in the sub-Section in respect of imported goods
would be determined in accordance with the rules made in this F
behalf.

20. Further, Rule 4 deals with the transaction value which
is required to b~ determined under aforesaid rule. Under Rule
4 of the Valuation Rules, the transaction value of imported
G
goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods
when sold for export to India. In accordance with the provisions
of Rule 9, such transaction value is required to be accepted
, subject to the proviso to sub-Rule (2). But the expression used
· in Section 14 and Rule 4 clearly indicates that the transaction
I H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.
~

";I.

A value of imported goods would be accepted as provided by
sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 but such value is always subject to the
provision of sub-Section (1) of Section 14 in view of the
opening expression used in sub-Section (1A) of Section 14
which opens with the expression "subject to the provisions of
B sub-Section (1) of Section 14." Therefore, the provisions of sub-
Section (1) of Section 14 would prevail when the transaction
value required to be determined u·nder Rule 4 does not reflect .....;;.
the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or
offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation.
c There cannot be any dispute with regard to said interpretation
that it is the provision which will always prevail. In other words
the deemed value contemplated under Section 14(1) would
prevail when the price declared does not reflect the price at
which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale
for delivery at the time and place of iryiportation. Under Rule 5,
D x
it is inter alia prgvided that the value of imported gooas--s·haU __ t-.
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 of Rule 3. It is also provided in the
said Rule that in applying the said rule the transaction value of
E 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. y

21. We are required to apply the aforesaid provision to the
'
F facts and circumstances of the present case and when done
so it would appear that the appellant although claimed a
transaction value, bllt such value could not be supported by
production of the original contract or the invo.ices relating to
procurement of cloves to the appellant under the ten Bills of
G 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 parties and it is merely a certificate issued
by M/s. Ketan Trading Co.
H
RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 967
(ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
,. 22. The respondent department has also relied upon the A ..
contemporaneous documents like the Weekly Bulletin of Spices
Market and also the Public Ledger. The Weekly Bulletin of
Spices Market published by the Trade Information Services of
the Spices Board of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India indicated that the price of Indonesian B
cloves on 24.11.2000 was US$ 4765 PMT and that of Zanzibar
cloves was US$ 4650 PMT. Such bulletin also indicates that
by 23.12.2001 the price of Zanzibar cloves had reached
Rs.6100/- PMT. The Public Ledger which is also considered
as International Publication of repute indicates that the price c.
of cloves in the international market on 27 .11.2000 was US
Dollars 4700 which reached US Dollars 6300 on 26.3.2001.

23. We are also satisfied with the records produced before
us that the nature of business of M/s. Ketan Trading Co. is
primarily dealing with sport goods and not cloves. There is also D
)I
a reference of the document on record particularly the relevant
• bill of lading which indicates that cloves were imported by the
appellants from IJIMASIA Pvt. Ltd. through M/s. Ketan Trading
Co. at the price of US Dollars 5600 PMT through bill of entry
dated 7.2.2001. The value of the said Zanzibar cloves were E
shown as US Dollars 5600 PMT. It has also come in evidence
-. that 9.5648 MTs cloves of Indonesian origin shipped from
' ~
Singapore imported by M/s. Spices Trading Corporation under
bill of entry dated 8.5.2001 were bought at the rate of US Dollars·
5500. The said consignment was shipped an 25.2.2001 as per F
the bill of lading. Another consignment of 9.300 MTs of cloves
¢-Comoros origin was also imported by Mis. Spices Trading
Corporation at the same unit price. A table of imports made
by the appellants in the Bill of Entry in quesfi~n is placed on ·.
record. The evidence therefore which exist on record clearly · G
"*\:
support the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the
Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai 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. We find no reason and H
'
968 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
..._
A ground to take a different view than what is taken by the said :'4_

two authorities.

24. In our considered opinion, it is conclusiv~ly proved that
the Department correctly imposed proper assessment value on
the goods in question imported by the appellant. The said value
8
for the purpose of assessment of the goods/had been correctly
arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Acts and the
Rules framed th~reunder particularly in accordance with Rule -.
5 of the Valuation Rules.

C 25. In terms of aforesaid discussion and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this appeal which
is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.