9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Entry Nos. 28 and 29 both dated 3-9-96. 2. The appellant imported two consignments consisting of two containers each declared to contain 20,000 metres of cloth from Korea. Bills of Entry dated 3-9-96 was filed for assessment of goods claiming classification under sub-heading No. 5907.00 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Suspecting undervaluation/misdeclaration of the goods they were subjected to examination. Representative samples were drawn for testing. Both the consignments were shipped from Korea by M/s. Kabul Synthetics Company Ltd. Under the invoices price of the material was shown @ 1.35 US $ per metre. Payment has been made through the Bank to M/s. Vastraco Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. It appeared to the authorities f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the appellant further contended that there is no reason to reject the transaction value. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors v. Commissioner - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 it was submitted that if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. He also contended that the Revenue has wrongly placed reliance on the payment routed through a third party in order to discredit the transaction value of the appellant. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, pointed out that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to mis-declare the article imported. The descr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted. 6. We are not satisfied that the contemporary CIF value taken by the Customs authorities as US $ 1.90 per metre cannot be applied in the case due to the difference in the quantity imported by the appellant. We find that the difference in the quantity is not so much that we can totally ignore the value relied on by the Revenue. Apart from the above, there is no material to show that the goods are offered to the appellant at a lesser rate in view of the quantity imported by it. 7. The finding that the invoice is not a genuine document is sustainable. No explanation is forthcoming from the appellant as to why it made payment to M/s. Vastraco Pvt. Ltd., Singapore when the import was from M/s. Kabul Synthetics Co. Ltd., Korea. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
