9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (J)]. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 823/99, dated 24-12-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the transaction value and proceeding to assess the goods in terms of Rule 6 and confiscating the transaction value of the imported HDPE granules at US $ 600 CIF, Chennai on the ground that same goods were imported at or about the same time. 2. Ld. Advocate subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation was US $ 570. He submitted that the PLATT s price of the appellants goods was US $ 560-570 and they had imported at the rate of US $ 570 and hence the goods compared was not the same and comparable and therefore, the enhancement of price is not justified. He relied on the judgments rendered by the Chennai Bench in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. v. CC, Visakhapatnam [2000 (116) E.L.T. 715 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in specific regions like East Asia, South East Asia etc., and it cannot be used for comparing identical and similar goods for which purpose goods should emanate from same country. 3. On the other hand, ld. JCDR submitted that the goods have been rightly compared and the assessable value has to be accepted. She relied on the judgment of Praksun Mercantiles Pvt Ltd v. CC, Kolkata [2002 (142) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there was no price variation during the period. As the goods are not comparable, therefore the submission of the appellants that their transaction value is required to be accepted is a well taken ground. Furthermore in Tribunal s rulings, rendered in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. (supra), which has been upheld by the Apex Court, it has been clearly laid down that PLATT s price report is not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
