9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drew the samples of the said fabric which on test by the customs house laboratory showed that the same were coated with PVC and contained 32% to 34.7% of woven fabric and 65.3% to 68% of PVC. From the above test result, the reasonable doubt was entertained by the Revenue that there was misdeclaration in the description of the import and accordingly there was under-valuation of the fabric in question. Further inquiries were conducted and it was found that one M/s. Real Rain Wear, Mumbai had filed bill of entry for identical goods declaring the value of the same as US $ 0.80 per metre. The imported goods of M/s. Real Rain Wear were also from Taiwan. Shri Anil Nahar of the appellant-company in his statement dated 2-8-2000 deposed that the nylo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods as 0.23 US $ and submitted that the sale price of the fabric in the indigenous market is only to the tune of Rs. 15 to 16 per metre and as such contended that there was no justification for enhancing the value of the fabric in which case the landed price of the same itself would come to Rs. 58 per metre. 4. The Commissioner of Customs vide his impugned order accepted the appellant's contention as regards the valuation of the fabric in question and dropped the charges against the appellant. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned before us. 5. Shri P. Devaladu, DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner has simply accepted the contention raised by the respondent without discussing the various evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the appellant has been considered by the Commissioner in his impugned order when he observes - the goods indeed are "coated fabrics of nylon and hence I am not in agreement with the charge made out in the show cause notice that the goods were misdeclared in description". 7. Similarly, Advocate argues that the Commissioner was justified in accepting the transaction value and the manufacturer's invoice in question inasmuch as there was not sufficient material on record to reject the said manufacturer's invoice. He submitted that the Revenue has gone by the import of M/s. Real Rain Wear which cannot be held to be contemporaneous import inasmuch as discussed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The description of the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by M/s. Real Rain Wear, we find that the Commissioner has discussed the same in Para 14A of his impugned order and has rightly concluded that the same cannot be contemporaneous import inasmuch as the goods were not comparable in respect of quantity, quality and period of importation and hence cannot be called to be contemporaneous import so as to adopt the value declared therein as the assessable value in the present imports. Similarly, the cost factor arrived at by the Revenue on the basis of price of raw materials imported into India cannot be held to be an acceptable basis as the appellant have produced the manufacturer's invoices describing the goods as nylon coated fabric and showing the price as US $ 0.23 per metre. The Revenue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
