2000 (6) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... side. Accordingly, the goods were detailed and the proceedings initiated against them for enhancement of the assessable value. Issuance of show cause notice was waived by the appellants along with waiver of personal hearing. As such the Commissioner passed the impugned order on the basis of the circular issued by Directorate of Valuation which was to the effect that identical goods were cleared during contemporary period at a declared unit price of HK Dollers 4.35 per CIF. He submits that the said circular relied upon by the adjudicating authority was never disclosed to them. It is his arguments that even though they waived the issuance of the show cause notice or the personal hearing, it was the duty of the adjudicating authority to discl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he time during which the other goods are imported is more or less the same and the quantity matches the quantity of the other imports, before the value of the other imports can be picked up. In any case the Commissioner has himself observed that there were no contemporaneous imports and as such value under rules 5 and 6 of the Valuation Rules cannot be fixed. He submits in the absence of any contemporaneous imports rejection of their transaction value at the first instance was not justified and in any case fixation of higher value under rule 8 without any corresponding evidence was not warranted. 3. Shri Chattopadhyay, ld. consultant further submits that the Commissioner has given them an option to re-export the goods on payment of redemp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly low and totally un-realistic, the matter was remanded to the authorities below for considering the evidences on record in the light of the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in that case. As regards the appellants request to allow re-export of the goods without redemption fine, he leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. He also justifies imposition of personal penalty. 5. After hearing both the sides we find that the appellants have made a request for re-export of the goods without redemption fine. The facility to re-export has already been allowed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal s decisions relied upon by the ld. consultant are to the effect that where re-export is allowed, no redemption fine is imposable. As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X