9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, Abhishek Verma for Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') against the final Order No. C-II/1132/WZB/2002 dated 26-3-2002 in Appeal No. C/362/91-Bom. passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-respondent herein. Facts : 2. M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee') filed Bill of Entry No. 100136 dated 8-1-1997 for import of Rough Diamonds of CIF US$ 185662.83 = CIF Rs. 66,83,862.00. The goods were supplied by M/s. Param ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OK i.e. $ 2.41 4. From the above table, it was concluded that lot No. (1) was overinvoiced by US $ 31817.74 = Rs. 11,45,439.00 and lot No. (2) was overinvoiced by US $ 58197.25 = Rs. 20,95,101/-, the invoice value of lot No. (3) was accepted as fair value. The total overinvoicing of the consignment therefore worked out to the extent of Rs. US $90015 = Rs. 32,40,540/-. The goods were proposed to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Act and penal action under Section 112 of the Act. 5. Assessee in its letter dated 29-1-1997 explained the actual position stating that the shipper had before hand informed that they would be sending the goods at reasonable value and asked the assessee to check the value after assortme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the two members of the trade panel, observed that they were the competitors. Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321, held that the transaction value would have to be accepted until and unless it is shown by some contemporaneous evidence that the price declared in the invoice was not the correct price. 8. In the present case, the department has failed to show from any contemporaneous evidence that the invoices were either fabricated or fake or that any relationship existed between the importer and the exporter. We entirely agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the transaction value has to be accepted until and unless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
