9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inquiries conducted to ascertain the correct value of the goods, samples were drawn and sent to CIPET, Ahmedabad, who reported that the goods were not Wide Specs but of prime (virgin) quality. Inasmuch as, the goods of prime quality were being imported at higher price ranging between US$ 600 to US$ 800 PMT, CIF, proceedings were initiated against the appellant vide show cause notice dt. 8-6-1998 proposing enhancement of the assessable value. Notice also proposed confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. After considering the submissions made by the appellant during the course of the adjudication, Commissioner enhanced the assessable value of HDPE from US$ 410 PMT to US$ 570 PMT and of LDPE from US$ 410 PMT to US$ 640 PMI. He a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mumbai Customs House do not carry any country of origin, whereas the country of origin in the present case has been shown as Venenzuala. He also noticed that the quantity imported by the appellant is much higher than the quantity shown in the computer printout. As regards, the imported LDPE, he arrived at the value on the basis of the prices shown in PLATT and by giving a discount of 5% from the price of HDPE. Shri V.S. Nankani has strongly argued that the PLATT price cannot be applied as held by the Tribunal in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. v. CCE [2000 (116) E.L.T. 715 (Tribunal)]. 5. We agree with the above contention of the ld. Advocate. Though there is a little variation in the density between the same samples but when two sampl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmining the assessable value. 7. We further note that the Commissioner while fixing the assessable value has fairly observed that there was no contemporaneous imports of identical goods. For better appreciation we reproduce the observations made by Commissioner in his impugned order : Here I find that the department has produced the computer printout of Mumbai Customs House of the contemporaneous imports of HDPE of different grades which are similar goods except for the fact that the country of origin is different. The same can be taken for the purpose of assessment after making proper adjustments for the quantity factors. In this connection, I find that the importer has given two worthwhile arguments i.e. in their case the country of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EAST ASEA) was $ 770.00/$ 747.50. As, far the purpose of assessment we take the lowest price, the ratio of the lowest price of LDPE and HDPE comes to 1.13:1 (i.e. 847.50/747.50). Using the same analogy the CIF value of LDPE in the contemporaneous imports should be 1.13 X 540 = US $ 644.3 PMT which is rounded off to US $ 640 PMT . 8. As is clear from the above, no evidence worth consideration has been produced by the Revenue to support its allegations and findings of under valuation of the goods, PLATT price has been held as not the correct basis for enhancing the value in terms of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. As such, we find no justification for upholding the impugned order, the same is accordingly set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
