9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no data available as the data was relied upon in the Order-in-Original was of April, 2005 was not indicated to the importer - Thirdly, on perusal of details of contemporaneous imports as relied upon by the adjudicating authority to enhance the value from $2.4/Kg to $3.18/Kg., is also on wrong footing as the details lack the quantity of imports, the country of origin and manufacturer of the goods - the same cannot be held as contemporaneous imports to reject the value declared by the appellant-importer - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No. C/433/05-Mum - Order No.A/87573/16/CB - Dated:- 26-4-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri S.N. Kantawa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances. One price list submitted by the appellants before the lower authority was found full of contradiction and the same was not accepted by him. The lower authority has relied on Tribunal decision in the case of CC Vs. Deccan Polypacks, 1998 (100) ELT 398 (Tri.) , and Poonam Plastics Vs. CC, 1989 (39) ELT 634 (Tri), in support of rejection of declared value. The contract price and the actual remittance also did not tally and the same has not been considered by the lower authority. The declared value has been rejected in all the cases, and the same has been directed to be finalised at $3.18/Kg CIF under Rule 8. Aggrieved by such order appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed issued to the appellant, seeks, to reject the declared price by relying upon the imports made during the period May, 2004 which is evidence from paragraph No. 2 of the Order-in-Original. The reliance placed for enhancing the value seems to be incorrect as the prices of the same product during May, 2004 may not be the same in January, 2005. Secondly, we find that for rejecting the declared price reliance was placed on the imports made in May, 2004 while arriving at the conclusion of under valuation, the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority relied upon imports during January, 2005 to March, 2005. This would indicate for rejecting the transaction value during January, 2005 there was no data available as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
