9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs, wherein dry ginger imported under two Bills of Entry were confiscated and allowed on redemption fine after holding that there was an under-declaration of value and the enhanced price fixed was US $ 1200 per MT. The said valuation was done under Customs Valuation Rules. The learned Advocate submits that when the matter was being considered by the learned original authority, the appellants were not in a possession of certain evidence in the form of copies of Bill of Entry covering imports of similar goods at Mumbai. Therefore, this Miscellaneous application for permission to submit these as evidence as contemporaneous imports of same goods at Mumbai. 3. Heard learned DR Shri S. Sankaravadivelu. 4. In view of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 8 thereof. The learned Advocate submits that in the meantime, the imports have been noticed at the Mumbai Port, where the Customs has fixed the assessable value at US $ 800 per MTs. These imports are on or about the same period as is covered by this appeal. Therefore, the learned Commissioner s order impugned fixing the assessable value under Rule 8 is not correct under law. In this connection, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of N.K. Aggarwal v. CC as reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 83 (T), wherein it was laid down that contemporaneous value has to be accepted and that it was open to the adjudicating authority to ascertain from the Mumbai Customs House as to whether this value was final or had been reviewed in acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hows that Mumbai Customs has accepted the declared value of US $ 800 per MT which is much lower than the enhanced valuation of US $ 1200 per MT in the order impugned, therefore, this fresh evidence needs to be considered by the learned Commissioner, while re-considering the merits of valuation of these two consignments. In this connection, we find that the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of N.K. Aggarwal and Bombay Pharma Products cited supra clearly hold that such contemporaneous imports should be considered for the sake of uniformity, even though imports were at different ports in India. Therefore, we set aside the Order-in-Original impugned and remand the matter to the learned Commissioner for de novo consideration of the entire is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
