9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... piece. On examination of goods it was found that these goods were imported first time at Air Cargo Complex, Jaipur and its value as declared cannot immediately be ascertained hence, the goods were cleared provisionally to ascertain the correct assessable value of the goods. Information was obtained from Directorate of Valuation, Mumbai who informed that similar goods were imported by M/s. Western India Packagings, Raigad at Sahar Airport from the same supplier M/s. S.K. Technology Ltd. under Bill of Entry No. 854450 dated 4-6-1999 @ Rs. 511/- per piece. Thus, it appears that the value declared by M/s Big Byte Corporation was not correct and they have grossly undervalued the goods to evade Custom duty. Therefore, the show cause notice was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to law. The goods already released provisionally were not in customs custody. Therefore, imposition of redemption fine for goods which are not in the custody of the department is not sustainable. 3. It was argued for the Revenue that the value of the VGA cards imported by the appellant was compared with that of the VGA cards imported by M/s Western India Packaging. The import of goods by Western India Packaging was within the period of three months from the date of import by the appellants and accordingly these are contemporaneous imports and comparable. Since the foreign supplier of both the consignments is the same and the period of import is contemporaneous and the goods are same, the value declared by the appellant is not correct. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were available only in respect of one importer. The revision of prices also has been carried out without making available the invoices relating to the imported goods to the appellant. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for demand of differential duty on the ground of under valuation of the goods . We find that in the case relied upon by the appellant the model which have been imported were of different types having different prices and these were from different exporters. Whereas in the present case the goods have been imported from the same exporter and the model and the specifications are also same. The Bill of Entry mentions the details of the goods with which the goods have been compared. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
