9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unbranded and the product, with which it is compared, is branded again carries much weight - also there is more than two months gap in comparison of similar consignments. The admitted fact is the price of impugned goods are highly flexible and varied even in a short period - rejection of transaction value and refixing of such value not justified. The impugned order failed to justify with factual and legal basis for enhancing value as ordered by the Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.780/2007 (DB) - C/A/57045/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 9-10-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by none for the appellant. Rep. by Shri R.K. Manjhi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.08.2017. As no one appeared on this date also, the matter is taken up for disposal based on the appeal records and on the submissions of the ld. AR. 4. The appellants submitted that the goods imported by them were unbranded and cannot be compared with branded goods for valuation. The value of imported goods depend on various factors like quality, quantity, country of origin and trade relationship between the buyer and the seller etc. When the Department compared the value of other imports, such comparison was not made considering the various influencing factors for value. The appellants submitted before the lower authorities the data to support that similar goods have been cleared at a much lower price in other ports. The Revenue sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reading of the impugned order will reveal that none of the submissions made by the appellant has been discussed for a finding. It would appear that the appellant s failure to submit copy of the contract, manufacturer s price list, details of negotiated price are the reasons for rejecting the transaction value. We note that the appellant filed bill of entry with supplier s invoice. The value was enhanced on the ground that the similar goods were imported at higher price. We note that the appellant has rightly objected to such enhancement on the ground that the contemporaneous value should be comparable on various parameters. There is no finding as to how the contemporaneous value has been accepted based on true comparison. The appellant s co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
