9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The main issue in this appeal is the quantum of fine to be borne by the marble imported by the present appellants. The fact that the goods were restricted import and that the appellants did not possess a specific authority to import the same is not contested. One of the issues agitated is the quantum of fine. The other issue in agita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms have the power to not to accept the transaction value in terms of the authority vested under Rule 10A of the said rules. The rule, however, requires an exercise to be undertaken by the authorities in rejecting the transaction value. No such exercise was undertaken. There is no justification for rejection of the transaction value. The mere observation that similar goods were cleared at a margi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15,000/- PMT. We, however, find that in the absence of colourwise bifurcation the Commissioner would be hard to put to the estimated total market price that the goods were capable of fetching. He thereafter fixed fine roughly of 150% of the CIF value. 5. Counsel at the time of hearing submitted that these goods were released pending adjudication in November, 1998 and the goods were disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen the invoices placed on record which account for a substantial quantity and have no reason to disbelieve the appellant when they say that the goods were sold at the same price. Counsel had filed a calculation sheet showing the average landing cost at Rs. 7,710/- PMT and average selling price of Rs. 9,398/-. Since this is the price at which the products were sold we find no difficulty in accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
