9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Bhat, President]. The common appellant entered into an agreement dated 28-11-1978 with Malaysian supplier for supply of Dried Copra at US $ 570 PMT C F. His application for licence having been rejected, he approached the High Court of Delhi for relief. The High Court on 24-2-1984 directed issue of a licence. On 13-3-1985 the licensing authority issued a licence subject to three condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value did not have much relevance and assessable value should have been based on the value at which such comparable goods are produced, manufactured by the same person are ordinarily sold or offered by us in India under competitive competition. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims on the ground that there is no evidence of comparable values and the appellant had not objected to the valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was that there should be no amendment in price and other terms of the contract. It is the case of the appellant that the contract price US $ 570 PMT, even though, the ruling price was only US $ 200 PMT. This appears so amazing and contrary to commonsense that the lower authority should have investigated this aspect of the matter. If investigation had revealed, as a matter of the fact, that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the High Court is not before us, it is undisputed that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked only in the context of the rejction of the request for licence. The High Court directed that licence to be issued. That order has no bearing on the assessable value of the goods. If the licensing authority had not imposed a condition that the price agreed to in the contract should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of comparable imports, the Customs House could have traced out such prices from the canalising agency which was functioning at that time. 3. The other ground urged against the appellant, namely, no objection was raised at the time of assessment is neither here nor there since refund is claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The view taken that Section 14 of the Act was inopera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
