2005 (5) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ealers of similar goods to ascertain the correct value of the goods involved. Such investigation revealed that M/s. Sumitra Enterprise have earlier also imported similar items from various countries, viz. Japan, China, Morocco, Philippines, Taiwan, USA, etc. The appellant cleared the earlier consignments in five bills of entry. The value declared was loaded in these consignments. The consignment under import was provisionally released after loading the value. On the strength of enquiries made, a show cause notice was issued covering not only the goods which were provisionally released but also the earlier consignments. 2. In the notice, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why the value declared by them in the present as well as in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E 13005 were cleared. 4. It could be seen that the Commissioner relied on a proforma invoice obtained from Singapore dealer and certain others obtained from Hong Kong Government in the form of an export declaration. For the rest of the goods, he determined the value on the basis of contemporaneous values which have been furnished by M/s. Philips India Ltd., and in respect of certain others, he adopted the procedure laid down in Rule 7 to determine the value. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the evidence produced by them in the form of bills of entry filed in the Sahar Air Cargo Complex where similar goods were cleared contemporaneously at prices lower than the ones declared by the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th sides, we observe that the Commissioner has rejected the transaction value of the goods in question without properly considering the defence. We do not find anywhere in the impugned order that he has taken into consideration the bills of entry produced by the appellant before him showing contemporaneous imports of the similar goods, while revising the declared value. His attempt to determine the price of imported goods on the basis of a proforma invoice supposed to have been issued by someone who later claims that he has not, cannot be sustained. The Commissioner also relied on the evidence obtained from M/s. Philips India Ltd. who in their letter certified the value of goods of certain ICs. His reliance on the information furnished by M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X