9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avi Vaswani, supplier’s representative. So also investigation brought out that similar goods imported by M/s. Adarsh Impex and M/s. Asian Impex, disclosed the declared value to the extent of double the value declared by the appellant. On specific verification, it was found that identical goods which were common in nature were imported by both these importers including the appellant. When there was no distinction in the goods found, the authority rejected the plea of second quality with less clarity. Detailed description apparent from the adjudicating order in paras 9, 10 & 11 compelled to enhance the value to the extent adjudicated - misdeclaration in the value of import called for enhancement. The appellant also failed to produce any te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before Tribunal arose challenging the order-in-appeal dated 31-3-2003. 3. Submission of the appellant before Tribunal was that the import was made much earlier to the import made by the other importers of Chennai who were M/s. Adarsh Impex and M/s. Asian Impex. Although, the goods imported by the appellant were not similar to the goods of above two importers, the authorities below determined assessable value of the import arbitrarily discarding the declared value. Goods imported by appellant was second quality with less clarity in the glass and packing was also in the plain brown and printed cartons. But compared imports were first quality packed in printed gift boxes. There were no warranting circumstances to equate both goods and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted by M/s. Adarsh Impex and M/s. Asian Impex, disclosed the declared value to the extent of double the value declared by the appellant. On specific verification, it was found that identical goods which were common in nature were imported by both these importers including the appellant. Therefore, ld. Adjudicating authority drew a comparative anatomy of the goods of different description arranging the declared value in the form of a table in para 10 of the adjudicating order at page 6 thereof. The table explains the quantum of under-valuation to the extent of 50%. When there was no distinction in the goods found, the authority rejected the plea of second quality with less clarity. Detailed description apparent from the adjudicating order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
