2011 (9) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... handrasekharan, JJ. Shri Sanjay Kalra, JDR for the appellant Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate and Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the respondents Per: Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) There are two departmental appeals filed against the orders in appeal no. 219 and 220/03 dated 23.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai I 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. M/s Asian Hotel, New Delhi filed five bills of entry during the period from 27.9.2001 to 1.11.2001 for airport clearance of rough marble blocks of Italian origin from M/s Al Jamahir Trading, Dubai and declared a price of US $ 135/MT (FOB) in respect of 3 bills of entry and US $145/MT (FOB) in respect of two bills of entry. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g authority did not follow the procedure under Rule 10A(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and also violated the principles of natural justice. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also concluded that the importer submitted certain invoices from the manufacturers and other documents on the basis of which the loading of value done by the original authority was found to be incorrect and accordingly, he set aside the orders of the lower appellate authority. The revenue is in appeal against the said order of the lower appellate authority. 3. Ld. SDR submitted that enough opportunities were provided to the importer for justification of the declared value vis-`-vis the values furnished by the revenue which the importer failed to utilise. Accor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Customs Act, 1962. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Rahul Ramanbhai Patel vs. CC(I), Mumbai 2010 (256) ELT 424. He also relies on the judgement of the Royal Enterprises reported in 2008 (231) ELT 318 wherein it is held that value determination following due process of law which remains unchallenged and done with free of consent of assessment cannot be impeached. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case we note that the assessing authority has issued show-cause notices to the importer proposing to reject the transaction value under Rule 10A and to revise the assessable value in terms of contemporaneous imports noticed giving details of such imports. In reply thereto, the importer has acce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X