9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is seen that in para 21 of Order in Original that the value has been enhanced on the basis of a Bill of Entry dated 25.11.2010 which is an import directly from Uzbekistan - In the present case, the appellant has imported the goods from Dubai, UAE, though the country of origin is Uzbekistan. It is also not brought out in evidence as to the comparison of the various parameters with regard to quality, quantity of the goods imported. The appellant has furnished data with regard to various Bills of Entry for imports made from Uzbekistan for the period from 12.4.2010 to 30.11.2010. In present case, merely because the value declared for the goods in a single Bill of Entry dated 25.11.2010 is 28 USD, the department has rejected the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value determined by the department and the goods were released to the appellant on the strength of 50% of the differential duty covered by the bank guarantee and the rest by personal bond. Thereupon, department issued Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2011 alleging that the goods have been undervalued and same has to be enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the transaction value and confirmed the differential duty, ordered for confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fine under sec. 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued. Separate penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against such order, the appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank, from Uzbekistan through Chennai Port from 12.4.2010 to 30.11.2010. The value declared for these imports was between 13 to 15 USD per kilogram. The appellant in present case has declared the value as 15 USD per kilogram which reconciles with the imports during the relevant time. However, without giving any cogent reasons department has rejected the transaction value relying upon the single bill of entry dated 25.11.2010. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sree Rajendra Textiles vide Final Order No. 41048 to 41050/2017 dated 20.6.2017 was relied to argue that the value cannot be enhanced unless the department has put forward reasons to reject the transaction value. The learned counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
