9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference in these charges would substantiate the declared price. Unless there is substantial difference between the declared price and the value determined after market enquiry loading must be avoided and the transaction value can be accepted - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/916/05 - A/94569/16/CB - Dated:- 19-12-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri C. Singh, AC (AR) for the appellant Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against Order-in-Original No. 105-R/2005 dated 06.05.2005. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 the value should have been determined under Rule 6 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, on the basis of contemporaneous imports of identical/ similar goods and on the basis of market enquiry after giving discount considering the difference in quantity. It is his submission that the impugned order be set aside. 4. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the respondents are traders and placed orders for huge quantity for the purpose of trading. It is his submission that respondent had placed on records before the adjudicating authority all the imports of identical/ similar goods in same quantity from the same supplier and the price as declared by the respondent were in conformi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent are huge for trading purposes. The finding of the adjudicating authority on this point are very relevant which re reproduce:- In respect of goods covered by B/E 989/31.01.03 and part of B/E 996/31.01.03, the value has been sought to be determined under Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, on the basis of similar goods imported by M/s. VIP Industries. It is seen that the quantity imported by M/s. VIP was much less than the quantity of imports in the instant case. Therefore difference on account of quantity has rendered the value of two consignments uncomparable. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that stray instance of import at higher price should not have been picked up for the purposes of fixation of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
