9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal was filed by the assessee against classification of the goods imported by them under CTH 9616.10 as also against the loading of value thereof under Rule 8(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal of the assessee. 3. On going through the records, we find that the appellant has disputed both the classification and valuation. According to them, the goods are classifiable under CTH 3303.00 and not under CTH 9616.10. In the memorandum of appeal, they undertook to explain their case with brochures, invoices, pamphlets, pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, appears to cover perfumes/scents imported without spray mechanism. The appellant described the goods in the bill of entry clearly indicating that they were imported in small containers of volume ranging from 40 ML to 100 ML with provision for spray. This factual position was clearly admitted by the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In their appeal filed with the lower appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) straightaway proceeded to examine the classification issue. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should have stated cogent reasons in support of the decision of the lower authority. These reasons are not forthcoming in the impugned order. Therefore, we are of the view that the valuation aspect should be addressed afresh by the lower appellate authority. In the interest of justice, an opportunity shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
