9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the goods are Vegetable Fatty Acid. Further for the purpose of valuation the Adjudicating authority proceeded to compare the import data of PFAD and that too from Malaysia and Indonesia and not from Oman. In the impugned order it is clearly noted that the said import data is not valid for the purpose of valuation in terms of Rules 5 and 6 of valuation Rules 1988 and "no further data pertaining to Rule 7/ 7A was available". Therefore the determination of the value of the impugned goods contained in nine containers based on the import data of PFAD (which is not the same as vegetable fatty acid) and that too from countries other than the country of origin and under Rule 8 without giving any methodology is totally without any susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods to be vegetable fatty acid and value U.S.$ 420 per MT CIF in the Bill of Entry No. 635823 dated 08/10/2007. In respect of nine containers (except container IMo.TEXU 3337205) the allegation was that they mis declared the value although the description was found to be correct and in respect of the 10th Container the allegation was that the goods were found to be Crude Vegetable Oil and were also under valued. 2. The ld. AR during hearing merely reiterated the findings in the impugned order even as the appellants citing specifics contended that the inferences/conclusions by the adjudicating authority have been drawn without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 3. It is seen that the test reports in respect of nine conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom Malaysia and Indonesia and not from Oman. In the impugned order it is clearly noted that the said import data is not valid for the purpose of valuation in terms of Rules 5 and 6 of valuation Rules 1988 and no further data pertaining to Rule 7/ 7A was available . Therefore the adjudicating authority went ahead to say that the value is determined under Rule 8 on the basis of data available in India as discussed in detail in Para 18 to 20 above which works out to USD 528 PMT CIF. We are unable to fathom as to how this value of US$ 528 PMT CIF has been arrived at as neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order throws any light as to how under Rule 8 his value has been arrived at. Therefore the determination of the value of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CRCL has not given any clear finding in that regard at all. The value of the goods in the 10th container was adopted on the basis of the Tariff Value for Crude Palm Oleic for which again there is no legal justification as the CRCL report about the contents of the 10th containers no where stated that the goods are Crude Palm Oleic. We also find that the show cause notice alleged that the declared value was U.S.$ 410 Per MT while in fact the value declared by the importers was U.S.$ 420 PMT. The Adjudicating authority has recorded that the goods were found to be odorless, off-white in colour and goods were not of Oman Origin although there is no basis whatsoever cited for recording such findings. None of the laboratory reports stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
