9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Nylon and PVC coated fabrics imported under the Bill of Entry was not taken into consideration. Although they had waived the personal hearing and the show cause notice yet they had not accepted the charge of misdeclaration or under valuation. They had pointed out in their reply dated 7-10-2000 that their purchase was on the basis of large quantities and on the basis of a negotiated price and they had negotiated for price for almost 5 containers of goods and their price was US $ 0.40 per metre as the correct price and the transaction value of their import. They had also relied upon in this context the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 wherein the Supreme Court had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay application is infructuous as the question of pre-deposit does not arise in this case as the goods have not been cleared. He contends that appellants themselves had waived the show cause notice and the personal hearing and prayed for leniency in the matter. At this stage they cannot make grievance of violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the appellants should have chosen to appear before the Commissioner. They themselves have given up their right of show cause notice and personal hearing. They cannot make a grievance now about the matter. He submits that no case has been made out for early hearing of the matter or for reconsidering the question of valuation adopted by the Department. He submits that the valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why the negotiated price for bulk purchase could not be considered in the light of the Supreme Court s judgment cited. The Counsel has brought to our notice, latest ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors and the order of this Bench in the case of Tapan Trading Co. We notice that these rulings are required to be considered inasmuch as there is no finding with regard to these pleas raised by the importer. We find that the Commissioner has not adverted to these pleas made by the appellants in their reply dated 7-10-2000. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. He shall grant personal hearing to the appellants and consider their e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
