9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly heard. 2. The issue involved is of valuation of the impugned goods, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU, imported mixed synthetic wool/(hosiery) fumigated (worn clothing suitable for reclaiming fiber and filed the following Bills of Entry for duty free clearances of the goods in terms of the notification No.52/2003-Cus dated 31/03/2003 (EOU Scheme) and the declared unit price and other particulars were as given below: S.No. No. of B/E & Date Description Qnty. (kg) Unit Price declared (USD) CIF Country of Origin Declared Assmnt. Value in Rupees 1 631623 15/12/07 Worn Clothing 21220 0.302 Korea Republic 2,56,715 2. 631764 15/12/07 Worn Clothing 19100 0.230 Japan 1,76,812 3. 632794 17/12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case during the course of hearing the manufacturer s invoice and letter of credit were asked from the appellant to be produced as these goods are rags and worn clothing which is old and used; therefore, the manufacturer s invoice is not available as they cannot be re-used for wearing purpose. As the goods have been imported directly from the exporters without obtaining the letter of credit and the same is also not available. The adjudicating authority has passed the order without furnishing any evidence of contemporaneous imports. Further, the bills of entry relied upon by the adjudicating authority is of similar goods imported by another 100% EOU on the same value but the value was loaded by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has been rejected on the ground that in another 100% EOU, the value of similar goods shown in the bills of entry has been enhanced by the adjudicating authority and the same has not been objected by the said importer, therefore, as per Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the value is enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports made on similar goods by another party during the impugned period. We also find that the appellant himself is a regular importer of the same goods and the appellant is produced at least 50 bills of entry of the same goods during the impugned period. Therefore, the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority while assessing the goods. Therefore, the decision taken by the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
