9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime he says that import of identical and similar goods of Brazil Origin were not noticed. In such circumstances the obvious logical step to take is to see the prices of contemporaneous imports from Madagaskar/Sri Lankan Origin whose prices are published in the Public Ledger . Instead, he straightaway proceeds to Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. In our view, he has not proceeded through the Rules sequentially and properly as per law. The Commissioner has stated that evidence of importation available in the Directorate of Valuation show a much lower price. In the grounds of appeal, this fact has not been challenged by the department. The department should have first discarded evidence of contemporaneous imports. - no enquiries were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could not be determined under Rule 7 also. Therefore recourse was taken to Rule 8. The Public Ledger prices were considered as the basis for arriving at the correct assessable value. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that evidence of importation available in the Directorate of Valuation show a much lower price. Further the department did not dispute the Brazil Origin of the goods. He accordingly set side the order of the adjudicating authority. 3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 4. We find that as per A.O., a Certificate of Origin has been produced which is signed by the Singapore India Chamber of Commerce. Although, this certificate is not available with either side, we find from the records that the authenticity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailing market price. But in the present case no comparison has been made with prevailing market prices. In the second judgment, the catalogue price of Mercedes was considered because it is a definite price published by the manufacturers. Therefore the facts of that case are distinguishable. In the present case no contemporaneous imports have been relied upon to show that the imports have taken place at prices which are published in the public ledger. We find support in our view from the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand 2010 (253) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) in which Hon ble Apex Court held that details of contemporaneous imports indicating the price notified by the LME had not been ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
