9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f entry, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has ordered the refund. The first substantial question of law is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that the price was provisional. Answer to the said question must be in the affirmative because the finding of the fact recorded by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is based on the finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The second substantial question of law is whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to produce additional evidence - Rule 5(1)(b) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, permits an assessee to produce the evidence where he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also not addressed the basic issue of not opting for provisional assessment and refund thereon as required in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. Heard Smt. K.R.Vanita, learned advocate for the Assessee and Shri. Ravi Raghavan, learned advocate for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee imported Phosphoric Acid from M/s. Maroc Phosphore S.A., Casablanca, Morocco, under a sale purchase agreement vide three bills of entry dated 28.04.2016, 30.05.2016 and 21.07.2016 under invoices No.17273, OCP-FACT-SA-34, 508 showing purchase price at USD 715 per metric ton and paid import duty. Subsequently, the unit price was finalized at USD 620 per metric ton. Assessee filed an application for amendment of bills of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price of USD 715 mentioned at the bills of entry was provisional price and duty has been paid based on the provisional price. In the meanwhile, the final price was negotiated and finalized between the parties at USD 620 and accordingly, assessee sought rectification of bills of entry. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has rightly allowed the same and his order has been upheld by the CESTAT. Hence, this appeal does not call for any interference. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned advocates on both sides and perused the records. 8. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), in para 10 of his order, has recorded that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs had recorded in para 5.4 of his order that the unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
