9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anjhi, DR for the respondent. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 28.06.2007 of Commissioner (Appeals-II), Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in trading of computer peripherals. They imported consignments of unrecorded CD-R and DVD-R and filed bill of entry on 22.07.2005 for clearance of the same. The goods were examined, assessed and cleared. Subsequently based on cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on many occasions. On most of the dates, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. When the case was last listed on 21.08.2017, Shri Saroj Kumar, Accounts Officer of the appellant appeared and requested for further adjournment. As a last chance, the case was adjourned to 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected without any reason. Even the comparison made is not with reference to contemporaneous price. The entire NIDB data for the relevant time will show the price varied widely. In fact, the Government was considering imposition of anti-dumping duty because the goods sold in the international market are alleged to have been dumped at the prices lower than the normal value in the exporting countr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellants have not submitted supporting documents to evidence the genuineness of their transaction value. A plain 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rejection of transaction value and refixing of such value has not been done by the lower authorities with justifiable reasons. 6. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find the impugned order failed to justify with factual and legal basis for enhancing value as ordered by the Revenue. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. [order pronounced on 09.10.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
