9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be defined as an identical or similar goods as defined in Rule 2 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Perusal of NIDB data revealed that there is no consignment imported from Finland and having the same grade of the impugned goods, hence, comparison with identical or similar goods cannot stand - Decided in favour of assessee. - Order-in-Appeal Nos. 429/MCH/AC/Gr. VII-C/2012 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2012 - Smt. Seema Arora, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Shri Sujay Kantawala, Advocate and Haresh Meena, CHA, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER M/s. AJS Impex (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) situated at C15/16, MIDC Industrial Area Taluja, Raigad, filed an appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 404/Cus./Mum.I/2009, dt. 17-12-2009. Further, the fact the payment had not been made cannot be made as an excuse for rejecting of the transaction value as the words are paid or payable . 4. Further, it is submitted that goods are not identical in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the country of origin in the instant case is Finland whereas the country of origin indicated in the Bills of Entries appearing in the said impugned Order-in-Original is UA , and grade appearing in column 6 i.e. description of goods column is ASTM-A36 whereas the subject Bills of Entries of the said impugned Order-in-Original, the grade is S275 JR, S235 JR, thus the goods on the basis of which the invoice price of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the value of the goods in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The value has been ascertained on the basis of the contemporary imports of similar goods, its also observed that lower value i.e. $ 460 USD PMT shown in NIDB data, was considered as basis. It seems there is no justification or the reasons given in respect of the grade of the impugned goods and country of origin. In the instant case, it appears that contemporary reports relied upon by the departments does not match as regards to the country of origin and the grade of the impugned goods. Thus the comparison cannot be defined as an identical or similar goods as defined in Rule 2 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 6. The appellants contentions in this respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
