9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is necessary to examine that such comparison are made with declared value and not with already enhanced value. Further, when there are multiple declared values, during the material period, it is an accepted principle that lowest price of such comparable value will be considered for re-determination of value of goods, whose original declared value was rejected. None of these principles have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder on merit. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they have imported four consignments of Polyester Zipper Rolls from China during the period November, 2007 to May, 2008. Each of the consignments was for an quantity of 11 MT. The declared values for assessment were from ₹ 93.65 to ₹ 95.17 per kg. (US$2.35 per kg.). The assessing authority rejected the declared value and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even when comparing with the similar goods with the varying prices, the lowest of such price should be compared. 3. Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order relied on the data of imports through M/s.Zeesun Zipper Ltd. and such comparison is sustainable in view of the wide variation in the value declared by other importers for contemporaneous period of import. 4. We have heard both the sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant, it would appear that the identically described goods from China of almost similar quantity were imported for declared value of ₹ 110.84 in July, 2008 through ICD, Tughlakabad. The claim of the appellant was rejected in the impugned order only on the ground that they failed to produce the bills of entry. The details of bills of entries are very much available for all imports wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
