9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. In this appeal at the instance of the importer challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 22-4-2002 affirming the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellants and loading the value on the basis of contemporary import. 2. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Original Authority by order dt. 14-6-2000 rejected the contention raised by the appellants that the goods imported by them the inferior grade and has assessed the goods @ US $ 4.50 gross. Aggrieved by the above, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same under the impugned order. 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that both the authorities below hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... temporary import by the assessing authority. We find that it is in respect of an import made in Aug 98. The Bill of Entry is dt. 25-8-98. We are at a loss to understand as to how the authorities could consider the above import as contemporaneous. This is the only reason for loading the price and fixing the same @ US $ 4.50 gross. 6. We are also of the view that the appellant is fully justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the very same supplier where the declared value @ US $ 2.84 gross was accepted by the Customs Authorities. 8. Ld. DR pointed out that the appellants have never raised any objection or loading the price at the time of import and that the objection now raised is only an after thought. We do not find any merit in this contention. From the very beginning even in the written submission and the mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
