9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were certain imports through Mumbai Port which had a value higher by 7.6% - Held that:- The original authority did not elaborate the reasons for resorting to provisions of Rule 6. He has not addressed the submissions of the appellant regarding the contract being entered into in June, 2004 itself. A variation of about 7% spread over a period of over four or five months cannot per se lead to a conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 15,733.28) was declared for import consignment of total quantity of 1099.32 MT. The declared value was rejected in terms of Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and the value was enhanced to ₹ 16,907.40 per MT in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules. The said finding of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (A). 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, 2004, though the consignment reached in September, 2004. The lower authorities compared the value of other imports which were assessed in August and September, 2004. Further, comparison made with import consignments of 300 MT and 550 MT is not valid, as the department failed to establish payment of any extra consideration and the invoice is in terms of commercial transaction based on contract. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laborate the reasons for resorting to provisions of Rule 6. He has not addressed the submissions of the appellant regarding the contract being entered into in June, 2004 itself. We note that a variation of about 7% spread over a period of over four or five months cannot per se lead to a conclusion that the imported goods are undervalued. Additional corroborative evidences are required in such situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
