9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of these goods under Bills of Entries No. 216800 and 216828 both dated 27-10-1999. They had declared the assessable value of the goods at about Rs. 2.6 lakhs and 1.9 lakhs in the Bills of Entries. Customs authorities held that similar goods had been imported at the same time by M/s. Arkaylite Electricals, Daryaganj, Delhi at a much higher value. It was, therefore, proposed to enhance the value of the appellant's consignment in line with the value of the similar goods imported by M/s. Arkaylite Electricals and to confiscate the goods for mis-declaration of value. The appellant contested the proposals, but his defence was rejected. The assessable values were fixed at a much higher amount and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned D.R. made available the case file during the hearing of the appeal. 3. With regard to the confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, the learned Counsel of the appellant submitted that the action was not justified at all. The appellant had been importing the same goods at the same price from the same source for quite some time and the Customs Authorities had assessed the goods at the declared prices, which were the transaction value of the goods between the buyer and the seller. He submitted that even after the present imports had been objected to by the Customs Authorities at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, the appellant's import through Air Cargo Unit at Delhi Airport have been assessed accepting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case for our perusal. 5. We have perused the records and have considered the arguments on behalf of both the sides. An important objection raised by him against the comparing of his goods with the goods imported by M/s. Arkaylite was that the life span of the two lamps was quite different. We find that the appellant had raised this argument at the adjudication stage. This is borne out by the appellants letter dated 6th November, 1999 at page 34 of the adjudication file, and many other pages of the file. Therefore, the rejection of this objection on the ground that the same had not been raised in the adjudication or any evidence produced on the same in the appellate proceedings was not correct. The life span is an important considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
