9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhancement, have not been supplied to the appellants. He further states that in respect of two consignments, the adjudicating Commissioner has used the value of the Japanese goods for making the enhancement even though the goods were of Chinese origin. The Ld. Advocate also argues that since the assessments made on Bills of Entry have not been appealed against, the impugned demand against the appellants is not justified. In this regard, the Ld. Advocate cites the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Preventive) - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) = 2004 (96) E.C.C. 217 (S.C.). He argues that the adjudicating Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the declared value and enhancing the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed has not reflected the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation. 3. After hearing both sides at length and perusal of case records and cited decisions, we find that the appellants declared the value of Refrigerant 134A (Tetrafluoroethane) declaring the unit price ranging from Rs. 56/- per Kg. to Rs. 82/- per Kg. in the first three cases. The adjudicating Commissioner has enhanced the same to Rs. 189.19 per Kg on the basis of contemporary imports noticed at Nhava Seva Port. The impugned goods and the comparable goods were both of Chinese origin. In the next two cases, the appellants declared the price of Rs. 114/- and Rs. 89/- for the same goods of Chinese origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner also prima facie appears to be justified in applying the residual method of valuation in adopting the value of comparable goods contemporaneously imported at other ports. Since the values were mis-declared, we also find that the argument that no demand can be issued in such cases is not valid, apart from the fact that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries (cited supra) related to the case of refund only and not to such cases of demand. 4. In view of the foregoing and taking into account the financial difficulties pleaded by the appellants, we direct predeposit of Rs. 10 lakhs towards duty within eight weeks from today and to report compliance on 8-10-09. Subject to compliance with the above d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
