9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declared value and adopted the contemporaneous unit price of US $ 18 per kg. under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, as basis for determination of the assessable value of the goods. The appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision of the said authority was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the assessee. 2. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the subject import was under a contract entered into between the importer and the foreign supplier on 15-1-2005 and the declared price of the goods was the transaction value in terms of the contract. The import was made within the validity period of the contract. The department had no case that the importer and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nai against the said final order of this Bench was dismissed by the Apex Court. In this connection, she produced a copy of the Apex Court s Order dated 10-7-2006 in Civil Appeal No. 2752/2006. Learned Counsel argued that, now that the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the assessee s own case relating to similar import of silk of Chinese origin under a similar contract with the foreign supplier stands affirmed by the Apex Court, the impugned order, wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) chose not to follow the said decision of the Tribunal, was liable to be set aside. It was also pointed out that a show-cause notice recently issued by the Department to the appellants in respect of two Bills of Entry filed by them in June 2006 for cleara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, and the same is reproduced below :- 15. In the appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), CESTAT held as follows :- ......We are of the considered view that the Apex Court s ruling was rightly followed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case. The subject goods were imported in terms of a contract indicating US $ 13.50 as the unit price agreed between the contracting parties. The import was made within the contracted period. The department has no case that any amount over and above the contracted price was paid by the importer to the supplier, nor is it their case that the importer was related to the supplier or that the price paid was influenced by any extra-commercial considerations. In the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was quashed by the High Court after reproaching the attitude of the Department. 4. We find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) himself felt that it would have been appropriate to wait for the Supreme Court to decide on the matter [Civil Appeal No. 2752 of 2006 filed by the Department against Final Order No. 174/2006 dated 20-3-2006 - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 80 (Tri.-Mad.)]. Now that the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision has come, we think, it is only appropriate to set aside his order, following Final Order No. 174/2006 ibid affirmed by the Apex Court. 5. We need not reproduce the said final order as its relevant portion is already contained in Para 15 of the Hon ble High Court s judgment, reproduced earlier in this order. 6. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
