9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 129D of the Act are against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs. In that order, the Commissioner has held that the value of the goods which were exported by M/s. Unimac (India) Ltd., M/s. Sobat India Ltd. and M/s. Gulishta Impex, the respondents to these appeals was not inflated, and that the drawback allowable on their export has rightly been paid to them. He dropped the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Assistant Director of the DRI; letter dated 6-2-1996 of M/s. TI Cycles of India, and letter dated 8-3-1996 of M/s. TI Hubs and Pedals. He has noted that of the first two firms indicated that samples of the components shown to them by the officers were sub-standard and inferior and that one of the letters shows it to be scrap. He has commented upon the lack of some of the components of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber and November, 1995, whereas the enquiries at Madras took place sometime in February and March, 1996. There is nothing to show that samples were taken of the goods, which were exported earlier, and that any of the persons at Madras were shown any samples of the goods exported. 5.The appeal does not question the correctness of the Commissioner's finding that the valuation of the goods or the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of the consignee and other particulars relating to the goods. It is further contended that the Russian Customs were informed that the exports were by M/s. Rajrani Exports and these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Commissioner. The Commissioner in fact has taken into consideration these facts. He records that the bills of lading were presented at St. Petersburg at the port ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oscow should bear upon the determination of the value of the goods exported here, especially in the light of the fact that the under-invoicing, if any, at Moscow was undertaken not by the consignee, M/s. Capella Plus but by a person who has apparently purchased the goods from it. The Commissioner's conclusion that these factors are not relevant to determine the value for purpose of drawback has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
