9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate, for the Appellant. Shri Jagadish Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The case is before us for the second time. 2. The issue involved in this case is the valuation of goods of 'Sony' and 'Pioneer' brands imported by the appellants in May, 2000. The import was from a trader in Dubai. The Customs authorities directed the appellants to produce manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter taking into account all the evidences in the matter. The order impugned before us in the present appeal was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta pursuant to that order of remand. In effect, the present order has confirmed the valuation made in the earlier order. Evidence produced by the appellants regarding contemporaneous import was rejected on the ground that those imports related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the prices indicated in that Circular constitutes the reasonable basis for valuation of the goods and that the valuation carried out in the impugned order being very much in excess of the prices indicated in the letter of the Commissioner (Import), Mumbai, the duty demand is required to be set aside. 5. We have perused the records and heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation of the present consignment also is required to be done based on the values indicated in that letter. It is agreed by both sides that the duty of Rs. 4,27,236/- paid by the appellants at the time of provisional release of the goods is more than the duty payable based on the Mumbai valuation. In view of the above, the additional duty demand made cannot be sustained. 6. The impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
