9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Joglekar, Member (T)]. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The Respondents/Importers had claimed invoice value of US $ 13.40 per kg. C.I.F. for a consignment of 1,250 kgs. of Theophyline Anhydrous BP. The Assistant Collector relying upon the contemporaneous import fixed the value of US $ 14.00 per kg. The Collector (Appeals) held that there was minor fluctuations in the international t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect from 16-8-1988 and, therefore, the relevant date for valuation was 8-8-1988 at which time new rules could not be made applicable. It was his claim that when the deemed value was available, there was no justification for accepting the tranasaction value. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned SDR. 5. Section 46 of the Customs Act requires a bill of entry to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final entry of the vessel was on 31-8-1988. Therefore, the law which prevailed on the date of entry inwards would be applicable for assessment of the goods even if bill of entry in their respect was filed before such arrival. Shri Srivastava submits that this would be valid only for determination of the rate of duty and not for the purpose of valuation which would be determined in terms of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea and hold that in the situation on hand the import was complete on 31-8-1988 on which date the Valuation Rules had application. In their judgment in the case of Dhiraj Lal R. Vohra - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 551 the Supreme Court held that the relevant date for imported goods in the case of prior bill of entry was the date of entry inwards only and all other dates were not relevant. This ruling is app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
