2014 (10) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... whereas the impugned goods have been imported by the appellant in September, 2007 and October, 2007. Therefore, the price shown in a Bill of Entry of February, 2007 cannot be relied upon. Further, we find that the standing instructions issued in the year 1999 have been applied for imports made in the year 2007. We further find that there is no basis for giving 15% discount on PLATT price for the impugned goods. There is no evidence of any contemporaneous imports of similar or identical goods nor is there any price available for similar goods. In the absence of any such evidence, the transaction value has to be accepted - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/891/2012-MUM - Final Order No. A/726/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 8-10-2012 - Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is available for contemporaneous import of such goods nor price of similar goods are available. Goods have been valued on the basis of PLATT price. He submitted that as per NIDB data found in Bill of Entry No. 599780, dated 6-2-2007 on the basis of that price the goods were valued at US $ 1036 PMT and thereafter 15% discount was given and the goods were assessed which is not correct as per Customs Valuation Rules. He further submitted that in this case, the goods are not of prime quality. Therefore, reliance on PLATT price does not arise and discount given @ 15% is also not sustainable as they are without any basis. Therefore, the price declared in the Bill of Entry be accepted and the goods have to be assessed on transaction value declared .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the price shown in a Bill of Entry of February, 2007 cannot be relied upon. Further, we find that the standing instructions issued in the year 1999 have been applied for imports made in the year 2007. We further find that there is no basis for giving 15% discount on PLATT price for the impugned goods. There is no evidence of any contemporaneous imports of similar or identical goods nor is there any price available for similar goods. In the absence of any such evidence, the transaction value has to be accepted. 7. In view of these observations, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that the transaction value is the correct value in the impugned Bills of Entry. With these observations the appeal is allowed with conse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X