2016 (12) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ms. L. Mythili, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Revenue argues that the contemporaneous import made in Calcutta Port as is appearing in para 4 of the show cause notice was just a day after the import made by the Bill of Entry No. 805156 dated 30.8.2005 by the appellant. The value declared was USD17.52 in the contemporaneous import but the appellant declared the value at USD13. When there is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are known to the importer and that is hidden, then Revenue would have made a case in their favour. But that is not the case in the present appeal. The contemporaneous value cannot be treated as contemporaneous in absence of details relating to source of supply, quantity and conditions of contract. Therefore, Revenue is not benefitted from the Apex Court judgment cited supra. 5.  We do agree .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X