9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Customs passed an order enhancing the assessable value of the imported goods to U.S.$ 1 per lb on the basis of import of almonds in shell against invoice No. 0542806, dated 27-9-1982 issued by M/s. California Almonds, Growers Exchange, California. Against the order passed by the Assistant Collector the respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) in which they made the following submissions : (a) the appellants had placed indent on 30-7-1982 with M/s. Freehouse Farms Inc; for 110000 lbs of Almonds in shell of non-peril quality of 1982 Crop. They entered into contract on 20-8-1982 at a price of U.S. $ 0.87 per lb ClF Bombay and accordingly opened L/C on 16-10-1982 for U.S. $ 95,700-./ (b) the invoice valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector the Department has filed this appeal. 4. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents. On behalf of the Revenue Shri Satish Shah, ld. JDR stated that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that the invoice price represented the assessable value of the imported goods. He submitted that in a number of cases listed in the appeal memorandum the Department had noticed the imports of like goods by other parties at the relevant time at U.S. $ 1.03 per lb. He contended that the assessable value under Section 14(a)(1) being the price at which such or like goods are `ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation and in a large number of contemporaneous imports of like goods having been noticed at or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Non-peril Select Seller Run offered at U.S. $ 239. 80 per 220 Ibs FOR, but other handlers had been consistently offering the goods at lower prices. While holding that the invoice price of U.S. $ 0.87 per lb in respect of the imported almonds-in-shell represented the assessable value of the goods under Section 14(1)(a), the Collector (Appeals) took note of the documentary evidence produced by the respondents and also the fact that there was no evidence to show that the respondents were related to the supplier or the invoice price did not represent the price actually paid. 6. It is seen that the respondents had produced sufficient evidence in support of their claim that at the relevant time California almonds-in-shell of comparable qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
