9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facie error. This does not amount to the petitioner ventilating the grievance by which it is seeking to dissect the findings of fact choosing to retain what is in its favour and rejecting what is not. Simply put, the Commission’s order is silent on the aspect with what the petitioner is aggrieved. Consignments which are in respect of identical goods though from different sources, while there could arguably be justifiable reasons to take a differential approach, in the absence of any spelt-out or considered reasons discernable to the Court or reader, such differential treatment would amount to discrimination – plainly clothing this Court with jurisdiction on this score - matter is accordingly remitted to the Commission limited on this as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties should be taken into account. The relevant directions of the Commission in this regard is as follows: 19. The Bench has carefully considered the arguments put forth by the applicant. On verifying the actual bills of entry, it can be seen that the freight and insurance has been shown separately in addition to the f.o.b. value. These should not therefore be calculated at the rate of 20% and 0.125% respectively for freight and insurance but only the actual cost of freight and insurance which is known should be added to the invoice value to determine the assessable value. On the basis of this, the differential duty leviable is reduced by Rs.81,39,326/ - 3. The petitioner had argued that in respect of imports from the US from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... averments by the applicant through this Advocate are also not acceptable. 4. The final order, therefore, was that in respect of the consignments from China and Korea, freight and insurance were to be calculated on actual basis whereas in respect of consignments in question from the US, the value was to be assessed at what had been proposed by the Department. This, argues the petitioner, not only betrays non-application of mind but is a blatantly erroneous approach. 5. The respondents argument is that being findings of fact, this Court should not interfere with the order of the Commission. The respondents rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited 2011 (4) SCC 635 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
