2009 (6) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the godown produced documents for 191 cartons of the imported yarn but could not produce any supporting documents for remaining 52 cartons. He stated that the 191 cartons weighing 10,136 kgs of imported yarn were purchased from the appellant and 52 cartons weighing 2002 kgs of imported yarn belonged to Shri Bhandari whose whereabouts were not known to him. The appellant stated that 191 cartons of imported yarn were purchased from Shri Devendrabhai of Ahmedabad whose full name and address was not known to him. Shri Mahesh P. Gupta, Regional Manager of M/s. Deluxe Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. stated that 2002 kgs of imported yarn were booked by Shri Rajesh Dhunichand Singhal, Yarn broker in the name of Shri Bhandari and the entire lot was delivered a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arrived at by the officers at Rs. 9,62,920/- (at Rs. 95/- per kg) in the Panchnama. He also stated that he is fully agreed to the market value. According to him, this shows that in the Panchnama as well as the statement of the appellant, what was recorded was the market value of the polyester yarn and not the ex-duty value of the imported goods. Further, he also submits that this contention has been rejected only on the ground that the appellant failed to show any evidence of contemporaneous import. It is his submission that once it is recorded that the value in the Panchnama is the market value, there would be no need to show the assessable value of the similar imported goods since the assessable value can be worked out from the market va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is established that the goods are of foreign origin. We also find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel that there is no need to find out contemporaneous import price in this case. That is required only in the case of regular import and not in the case of the goods smuggled. Market value is available and in this case would include profit of concerned trader, customs duty, handling charges, transportation charges etc. and therefore request of learned counsel that the market value may be treated as cum-duty price is the best option under the circumstances rather than striving to find out value based on contemporaneous import. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X