9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the imported goods - In the absence of any evidence to show any flow back of money from the importers to their supplier, the rejection of the invoice price, which is duly supported by the purchase order and the sales confirmation, cannot be upheld on the sole ground that the appellant has not been able to substantiate their plea that the said commodity s price is open to fluctuations - Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same country at the higher declared value of US$ 1570 PMT. Accordingly, two different show cause notices dated 19.01.2005 and 20.01.2005 were issued proposing to reject the transaction value and to enhance the same in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and to confirm the demand of duty of Rs. 1,49,292/- and of Rs. 1,15,146/-. 3. The appellants in reply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was confirmed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants, who is a government undertaking, entered into a contract with their supplier trader for purchase of Aniline Oil in question. For the said purposes, they entered into a purchase order showing the prise as US$ 1535 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence to show any flow back of money from the importers to their supplier, the rejection of the invoice price, which is duly supported by the purchase order and the sales confirmation, cannot be upheld on the sole ground that the appellant has not been able to substantiate their plea that the said commodity s price is open to fluctuations. We also note that difference in price is not on the higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
