9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be done under Rule 4 ibid were also not considered in proper prospective. Thus, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the show cause notice and dealt with in the impugned order cannot be considered as proper and justified - the documentary evidences submitted by the appellants at this juncture for a decision on merit cannot also be considered as proper inasmuch as such submissions were not considered properly in support of confirmation of the adjudged demands at the original stage. The matter should go back to the original authority for a detailed fact finding on the merits of the case, based on the available documents/records - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No. 484 of 2010, 485 of 2010, 521 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that the importer M/s. S.G. Impex had not declared the specific parameters of imported goods such as model nos. of front panels which had a direct bearing on the value of the goods. They also found that the quantity declared in the invoice and the packing list did not tally with quantity declared in the Bill of Entry. Hence, the subject consignment was examined on 100% basis in the Docks under Examination Panchanama dated 09.07.2009. During physical examination of the goods, it was found that there were 24 different models of front panels along with Remote Controls, Manuals of 29 models and Packing Boxes of 23 models of Car stereos of three different branded companies. The department recorded statement of various persons with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On prima facie examination of the case records, we find that certain information/records submitted by the appellant namely, comparative chart along with Bill of Entry showing contemporaneous import made by the importer M/s. S.G. Impex; data with regard to the imported goods reflected in the system etc., were not properly examined at the adjudication stage. Further, the submissions of the appellant that the valuation should be done under Rule 4 ibid were also not considered in proper prospective. Thus, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the show cause notice and dealt with in the impugned order cannot be considered as proper and justified. The documentary evidences submitted by the appellants at this juncture for a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
