9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and brand and model numbers, etc., ascertained. Bulk of the goods were of Korean and Chinese make. Except for CT 500 brand calculators, the details of the model, type Nos., etc., did not tally when compared with those on the goods and those on the documents. Prima facie it was a case of under-valuation. Earlier imports of CT 500 calculators of Chinese origin were noticed at USD 3.36 FOB as against USD 0.29 (CIF) declared by the importers. Importers were not able to produce the manufacturer's invoices. For the other goods market inquiries were conducted and values obtained. Show cause notice was issued. In reply the importers contested the comparison with the CT 500 brand calculators earlier imported. Findings of the market inquiry were cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Customs [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] and claimed that no ground existed for the Commissioner, to have rejected transaction value. Shri Shaikh supports to the Commissioner's order claiming that no evidence was led by the appellants to show that the goods were stock lot. 4.We have seen the correspondence placed on record by the appellants. 5.Shri Dhoiphode showed us one piece of paper, which appears to be a letterhead of a shop, at the back of which, there is some jottings showing some valuation. He claims that this was the only market report, which he got from the Customs. Needless to say it cannot be termed to be one. 6.The letter dated 12-5-2000 from M/s. Alam Trading Company addressed to the appellants listed the goods av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 as against the declared value of US $ 0.29. We find that the number of calculators imported in the present consignment were less than in the contemporaneous import. The fact that the present importers have purchased a large quantity of other goods besides the calculators does not go in their favour. The adoption of the higher value on the basis of contemporaneous prices is valid. 9.In the case of other goods, however, the manner in which and the ground on which the higher valuation is adopted do not stand scrutiny. The Commissioner has proceeded to determine the value under Rule 8 i.e. the best judgment method on the ground that there was no contemporaneous import nor were any identical/similar goods sold in the market. 10.He then ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
