9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng box of goods mentioned country of origin as Japan instead of China as mentioned in the B/E - Held that:- It is found that appellant has produced letter issued by their supplier contending themselves to be actual manufacturer and that impugned goods were meant for supply to Japan and as Japan refused to take delivery of the goods, therefore, these goods were exported to the appellant and contended that the country of origin shown on the box as Japan is their mistake. Revenue has not controverted these two letters nor they have denied the genuineness. Therefore, the appellant has discharged their onus of proving that the country of origin is China. - C/566/2003 - A/501/2012/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 13-6-2012 - Ashok Jindal, P R Chandrasekhara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent confirming that the goods are meant for Japanese customers and as their Japanese customer did not accept the goods, the same goods were sent to the appellant. Therefore, the allegation that country of origin is wrong has been explained by the appellant. With regard to valuation, he submitted that, in their own case, as the appellant are being an importer of similar goods, they produced the Bills of Entries under which goods were cleared at JNPT Port but the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has not given any consideration to them. Therefore, the value loaded by the adjudicating authority is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri D.D. Joshi, learned AR supported the impugned order and submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made at Chennai Port of similar goods. It is the contention of the appellant that the goods imported at Chennai Port are not similar goods which they have submitted in their reply to show cause notice saying that the goods imported by them are of the quality of NF-CS whereas the imports made at Chennai Port are of NF-SS. Therefore, the goods are not comparable or similar goods. Further, the appellant has also relied on the contemporaneous import made by them both of similar goods during similar period, and of similar quantity. However, the adjudicating authority has not given any consideration to the same on the premise that the goods were imported by the appellant themselves, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. No case has been booked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
