2000 (3) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellant) against Order-in-Original No. S/10-209/99 Gr. III, dated 22-12-1999 whereby declared value of impugned goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 7302, dated 16-6-1999 was enhanced from US $ 175 per metric ton to US $ 361 per metric ton for assessment purpose and impugned goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of Customs Act 1962. Adjudicating authority, h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting authority has arbitrarily enhanced the value of impugned goods on the basis of value of raw materials which is totally contrary to Rule 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and provisions of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. Appellant pointed out that adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the four corners of show cause notice while relying on website report to indicate that the manufacturing company .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the name of the supplier of the impugned goods. Since the appellant had submitted manufacturer s invoice indicating supply of stock lot to the supplier, transaction value needs to be accepted under Rule 4 of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. I, therefore hold that the impugned order is neither legal nor correct. In view of this I set aside the impugned order passed by lower adjudicating authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X