2016 (11) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng on imports made from the same supplier at near about the same time is justified. The decision in the case of COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus SHIBANI ENGINEERING SYSTEMS [1996 (8) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] referred, where it was held in similar circumstances involving import from a trader, where the manufactures invoice was not produced, that ridiculously low price can be rejected. In the instant case, the price declared was less than 40% of the contemporary import price and therefore, it was rightly rejected. Furthermore, the appellants have contested that what they have imported is of 97% purity and the purity of the contemporary imports has not been mentioned. It has been argued that the contemporary imports made have be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In the written submission it was argued that what appellant had imported were Fused Magnesia of 97% purity . It was argued that the contemporary imports at higher value did not indicate purity and could have been of higher purity. It was argued that the appellant had submitted two Bills of Entry of fused magnesia where a price of US $ 325 PMT and US $ 327 PMT was accepted for import through, Vizag port. It has been argued in the written submission that the adjudicating authority has not alleged any manipulation with regard to price and the adjudicating authority has failed to mention the clause of sub-rule 2 under which the transaction value has been rejected. It has been argued that no reasons have been given by the adjudicating authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... supplier in the said cases of import at Vizag. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that they are comparable goods. In the case of contemporary imports pointed out by the Revenue it is seen that both the imports are from same supplier M/s.Possehl, Hong Kong and very proximate date of import of the appellant. In these circumstances, not relying of the import made in Vizag and relying on imports made from the same supplier at near about the same time is justified. 5. The appellants have contested that no reason has been recorded for rejection of transaction value. In this regard the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shibani Engineering Systems (supra) has held in similar circumstances involving import from a trader, where the ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X