9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of their transaction-value as shown in the invoice received from their suppliers. The Customs Authorities were, however, of the view that the price of the goods should be US $ 720.00 per M.T. (C.I.F.), since they had found the importation of identical goods both at Calcutta and at other ports, around that price. These evidences were reported to have been shown to the appellants herein and consequently, it is stated in the Order-in-Original dated 19-1-1993, that the appellants gave a letter in writing dated 14-12-1989 that they are agreeable to adjust the price of the imported goods at US $ 750.00 per M.T. (CIF). Consequently, the goods were released. The appellants were aggrieved with the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1989 and January, 1990. 3. It cannot, therefore, be said, submits the learned Consultant, that the price adopted by the Customs Authorities was a price agreed to by the appellants. Nevertheless, he submits that a right of an appeal against an Assessment Order cannot be taken away because there is no estoppel in law, as held by the Tribunal. In the case of Lakshmi Colour Laboratory v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613, where in similar circumstances, the appellants accepted the price-escalation by the Department. But the Tribunal held that the appellants therein had a right to challenge the Assessment Order. 4. Coming on merits, learned Consultant submits that for discarding the transaction-value of US $ 720.00 per M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal should be dismissed. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. We observe from the facts of the case that the goods were imported in 1989 and they were cleared in December, 1989 and January, 1990. But the Order-in-Original has been passed in 1993, after a lot of pursuasion and insistence by the appellants herein. We, therefore, agree with the submissions of the learned Consultant that they did not agree voluntarily with the prices enhanced by the adjudicating authority. Had that not been so, the Assistant Commissioner would have no difficulty in issuing the Order immediately. Apart from that, we also observe that the enhancement made by the Customs Authorities is only to the tune of 4% of the price actually assessed by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
