9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave carefully examined the impugned order, the grounds of appeal and connected records. We have also heard learned JDR, Shri J.M. George, for the appellant-Revenue. The respondents are not represented in spite of notice. This is an old matter and, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this case finally. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had imported 8000 pairs of M-locks and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority accordingly ordered assessment on the basis of the value US $ 0.80 per piece. The appeal filed against the decision of the Assistant Collector was allowed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who directed the lower authority to accept the declared value for the purpose of assessment. The Revenue s appeal now before us is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the standard goods chosen for comparison. We have noted from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the lower appellate authority has found that no contemporaneous importation of the goods adopted for comparison was found in the case and, therefore, the valuation sought to be done in terms of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act was clearly illegal and unsustainable. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 14(1) of the Act for the purpose of determination of the correct value of the imported goods in question was not satisfied, the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act were erroneously pressed into service. The assessing authority ought to have accepted the determined price and made the assessment on that basis. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and we upho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
