9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from USD 160/- to USD 220/- per CBM, but the adjudicating authority has ignored the evidence produced by the appellant that the value of USD 130/- and USD 140/- were also accepted by the Customs. Moreover, the copies of bill of entry and invoices relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not supplied to the appellant. The names of the importers are also missing; the quantity is not mentioned and the size, grade and quality are also absent. The unit price which is the most important factor is missing and, therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority is completely weak and not reliable. Also, no evidence led by the Revenue to counter the values declared by the appellant. Therefore, by considering the various case laws, the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authority. Now the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the declared value as the transaction was at arms length and the supplier and the appellant were not related to each other. He also submits that the supplier in this case was a reputed manufacturer and the goods were shipped against an irrevocable Letter of Credit. He further submits that the price declared by the appellant represents the genuine transaction value as the price was negotiated in the normal course of international trend. He further submits that the appellant produced the manufacturer s invoice and also produced evidence to the effect that the Indian Customs h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been enhanced on the basis of value noted for contemporaneous imports and accordingly he reiterates the findings given by the lower appellate and adjudicating authorities. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC reported in 2003 (157) ELT 625 (SC). 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the records. 6. In this case, the enhancement of value has been done under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 by rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. As per the said Rule, if more than one value is found, then the lowest of such value shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
