9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. In this connection he drew our attention to Para 13(e) of the impugned order. He pointed out that the learned Commissioner had relied upon the price quoted for polypropylene granules on the basis of an invoice which was dated 24-5-1995. He pointed out that this invoice referred to poly propylene of Singapore origin. The learned Counsel therefore contended before us that no such import was shown to have taken place against this invoice dated 24-5-1995. Even otherwise he contended that polypropylene which is imported by the appellants is of USA origin. In this connection he pointed out that he had taken the plea in reply to the show cause notice that what was imported by the appellants was inferior quality and not prime quality. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Revenues Control Lab, New Delhi. He pointed out that since the demurrage was increasing, the appellants had no other alternative except to request for decision on the available materials. He also produced two documents before us. The first is with respect to polypropylene wide spec which was imported in 9/94 and the value was shown as 425 US $ per M.T. He also relied upon another Bill of Entry (BE) wherein the following goods are imported : (1) Wide spec (2) polypropylene Polyethylene. In that BE, the price of the goods was shown as US $ 650 per M.T. This was imported against invoice dated 21-5-1995. Relying upon this document, he contended before us that the valuation adopted by the department is clearly excessive. 3. Shri V. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplated under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further relied upon another BE with respect to similar goods and he stated that the price also tallies which is adopted by the adjudicating authority. 4. With respect to the BE produced by the appellants wherein the price mentioned is 425 US $ the ld. SDR, stated that importation was made on 17-8-1994 whereas the present import is in 5/95 and therefore, that price cannot be made applicable to the present import. With respect to the other BE produced by the learned Counsel, the learned SDR stated that it contained polyethylene and not polypropylene and the relevant file under which the above import had been made is not readily available in the department. He stated that he made efforts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Calcutta High Court, which was relied upon by the appellants reported in [1993 (68) E.L.T. 537], it was held that under the valuation rules, comparable goods must be of same country, more or less of the same quantity and in respect of the same period. Bearing in mind the above decision, we find that the goods imported by the appellants at US $ 300 is the transaction value. But in Para 13(e) of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has relied upon an invoice dated 24-5-1995 which pertains to goods of Singapore origin. No, BE with respect to the above invoice was relied upon in the impugned order. Therefore, at this juncture, there are no materials to show that the importation was made against that invoice. The learned SDR pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department. In our view, in the facts and circumstances available in this case, the best material that can be relied upon is the evidence of the BE produced by the appellants and we therefore fix the price for assessment purpose at US $ 650 per M.T. in this case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants so far as this import is concerned is partially allowed in the above terms. 7. As far as the import of 8 M.T. LDPE is concerned, the only evidence relied upon by the department to enhance the value from 300 US $ to 700 US $ per M.T. is a communication from the Chemical and Petrochemical Manufact-urer s association addressed to the department of Revenue and circulated in August, 1994. In this connection the learned Counsel Shri A.K. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of contemporaneous evidence of imports of like goods, we are of the view that no basis has been laid in the impugned order for enhancing the value from US $ 300 to US $ 700 per M.T. Accordingly, we hold that valuation as made by the appellant has to be accepted and we order accordingly. We make it clear that it is open to the department to take such other action as permissible under law if such evidence of other contemporaneous import is available. 8. The next question for consideration is whether the redemption fine of Rs. 1 lac and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- are legal or proper. In this connection we observe that we have already reduced the value with respect to these two imports. In determining the redemption fine, the Commissioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
