9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department wanted to enhance the c.i.f. value to a sum of Rs. 11,66,181 in Order No. 35/96 and Rs. 21,73,849. In Order No. 36/96, in terms of adjudication the c.i.f. value of the goods was enhanced by Rs. 10,60,252 and in the other cases it was enhanced by Rs. 21,73,849. In both the cases, the adjudicating officer in the finding held that Rules 5, 6 7 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (1 of 1988) are not applicable and therefore, they are ruled out. The valuation has been determined under the provisions of Rule 8. The document on which reliance was placed by the adjudicating authority is on a fax message dated 12-9-1995 in both the cases. 2. The learned Counsel contended before us that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troverted by the appellant, no reliance can be placed on the same. If that is so it was pointed out as to why the department did not proceed to take follow-up action. He stated that the enhancement of the value of the imported goods is not in accordance with law. He also stated that at a later point of time he has received an affidavit from M/s. GTMCL stating that this endorsement was furnished by them. But the endorsement was furnished in the fax message dated 12-9-1995 which is quotation and which is now being relied on by the department. 3. The learned DR stated that in the usual course of verification the customs used to get these fax messages from the foreign manufacturers. Those fax massages so received by the customs authorities ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunity to convert this evidence only after it was furnished to them. On that count, it cannot be said that this endorsement cannot be relied upon as it was obtained at a later point of time. 5. The next contention of the learned DR is that the Collector in the impugned order has stated that it is not an authenticated endorsement. If this argument is taken, we do not know as to how the fax message received by the department is an authenticated one. When the department has furnished the particulars of the foreign supplier and the appellant sent the same to the foreign supplier in the said address and once when it has come from that foreign supplier the presumption is that it is sent by the very same supplier to the address which is fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the matter, we find that there is an acceptable evidence-produced by the department to increase the value either in the form of a quotation or a price list or any other contemporaneous imports. They have also not produced any evidence with respect to the value of any comparable goods. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. There is also no evidence or an allegation against the appellant that they have made any extra remittance in respect of these goods. Accordingly, on the available evidence on record, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant. We make it clear that in case at some point of time if the department can get hold of any such evidence or any price list, the department is at liberty to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
