Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2010 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 248 - CESTAT, MUMBAIAppeal- The department issued a show-cause notice for finalising the assessments without the benefit of serial No. 242 of Notification No. 21 /2002-Cus. and, accordingly to demand differential duty of over Rs. 26 crores from the assessee. The proposals and demands were contested. It was in adjudication of this dispute that the Commissioner passed the impugned order, wherein the assessments were finalised as per his best judgment under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules and, accordingly, differential duty was demanded without the benefit of serial No. 242 of the notification. In the impugned order, it was inter alia observed that Rules 5 and 6 of the Valuation Rules could not be invoked for want of contemporaneous import from the same country-of-origin and at the same commercial level. Held that- Nevertheless, the party failed to claim the benefit of Rules 5 and 6 of the Valuation Rules. It is said that the aforesaid companies were also awarded similar contracts by BSNL at about the same time. If that be so, the appellant could have taken reasonable steps for gathering information as to the nature of goods imported by those parties, the country-of-origin of the goods, the period of import, and the like. The appellant could have gathered such information directly from the department during the course of adjudication of the show-cause notice. The Right to information Act was also at their disposal. At this juncture, they have come up with a belated prayer, which is haphazard too, for a direction to the department to furnish details of the imports made by the afore named companies. This plea cannot be allowed. The application stands dismissed.
|