9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n importer who imported the goods first from Iraq to Nepal and then from Nepal to India. The Customs Authorities assessed the goods when Bill of Entry was presented. Subsequently the Customs Authorities found that the assessment of the Bill of Entry was not correct. Therefore a SCN was issued to the importer asking him to explain as to why differential duty amounting to Rs. 37,73,460.60 should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that the value should be determined on the basis of Chartered Engineer's certificate in the instant case. He submits that the adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority did not give cognizance to this contention of the importer and determined the value only after giving depreciation on the original value at which the goods were purchased in Iraq. He submits that this was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 14 of the Customs Act was to give depreciation on the original value at which the goods were purchased in Iraq. 6.On the second issue regarding the benefit of Notification No. 220/90-Cus., ld. DR submits that this notification was issued in July whereas the Bill of Entry was presented in February. It is the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry in terms of Section 15 of the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-7-90 is concerned, the admitted position is that the notification was issued sometime in July, 1990 whereas the Bill of Entry was presented in February, 1990. In terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, it is the date of presentation of Bill of Entry for determination of rate of duty or tariff value, if any. Thus, we do not find any mistake insofar as disallowance of benefit of Notification No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
