2005 (8) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lue fixed by the Govt. under Notification No. 36/2001Cus. (N.T.), dated 23-8-2001 cannot be given to the impugned goods as they do not satisfy the requirement of Notification No. 21/2002Cus., dated 1-3-2002 to qualify as crude palmolein. Therefore, the Original Authority passed three orders confirming the differential duty demanded and thereafter the appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed Orders-in-Appeal No. 71 to 73/2004 dated 29-4-2004. The appellants appealed to CESTAT, Bangalore. The cases were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) consequent to the remand order of the CEGAT passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2004 dated 15-10-2004. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assification of Customs Tariff. There was no dispute that the crude palmolein imported by the appellants particularly fell under Chapter Heading No. 15.11. Therefore, the question of looking into classification at further lower levels of six or Eight digit level was unnecessary and irrelevant. 7. The learned SDR reiterated the Order-in-Appeal. 8. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Two issues are involved in this appeal. (1) What is the correct value to be adopted for payment of Customs duty in this case? (2) Whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the tariff value in respect of the impugned goods. 9. As regards the issue No.1, Revenue has rejected the transaction value on the ground of con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en though the first four items fall under the same chapter sub-heading, the tariff values are different. For example, in respect of crude palmolein, the tariff value indicated is US $ 415 and in respect of RBD palmolein it is US $ 434. Therefore, it is very necessary to ascertain the nature of the goods before deciding the tariff value. Since we do not have details of the bills of entry, it is very difficult for us to give a decision on this point. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the lower authority have come to the conclusion that the item imported will not qualify for getting the benefit of tariff value. In the absence of further details, we are not deciding this issue. Hence, we hold that the transaction value declared by the appellants s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X