9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue. 2. The appellant imported a consignment of 500 kg of edible acid casein 30 mesh from France by air and sought its clearance under Bill of Entry Thoka No. 9298 dated 30-1-1991. The invoice No. 90110069 dated 16-1-1991 submitted alongwith the Bill of Entry showed the total value of the goods at US $ 3260 CIF with the break up cost US $ 1690 + FOB charges US $ 150 and freight charges US $ 1400 with insurance US $ 20.00. The importers declared in the Bill of Entry the FOB value US $ 1840.00 (cost - US $ 1690 + FOB charges US $ 150) and claimed the freight and insurance US $ 386.70 @ 21.125% of the said declared FOB value. The authorities below sought to enhance the value for purpose of assessment on the basis of the import made by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lla vehemently that the importers' goods had been contracted on 15-1-1991, invoice was raised on 16-1-1991 and the goods had been flown by air sometime on 30-1-1991. Bill of Entry was dated 17-1-1991. Therefore, it is argued that the goods are not at all identical nor can be claimed as similar. It is also emphasised by the ld. Counsel that the seller had given the particulars regarding industrial acid casein which is at Exhibit `M'. In Exhibit `N' it has been specifically stated by the seller as follows: "We do not give any guarantee for protein contents or bacterial specifications for industrial casein. Frankly speaking in industrial casein which you require for manufacturing rosin emulsion protein contents and bacterial specifications ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 23-9-1990. The country of origin is indicated as Denmark. In the instant case, the country of origin is France. The date of clearance under B/E was on 30-1-1991. In the instant case, the quantity is 500 kgs. whereas, the case indicated by the Department, the quantity is 1000 kgs. All the particulars given above would go to show that the goods which have been compared are not at all neither identical nor similar in quantity and country of origin as well as description. Once, these particulars are not tallying, in our view, the goods could not be taken for purpose of enhancement of value. We have no other alternative but to accept the transaction value only. Apart from that in the Raptikos Brett case, the quality of the goods is indicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
