TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. The case is before us for the second time. 2. The issue involved in this case is the valuation of goods of Sony and Pioneer brands imported by the appellants in May, 2000. The import was from a trader in Dubai. The Customs authorities directed the appellants to produce manufacturers invoice in support of the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the matter. The order impugned before us in the present appeal was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta pursuant to that order of remand. In effect, the present order has confirmed the valuation made in the earlier order. Evidence produced by the appellants regarding contemporaneous import was rejected on the ground that those imports related to either a much earlier period or of unb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the prices indicated in that Circular constitutes the reasonable basis for valuation of the goods and that the valuation carried out in the impugned order being very much in excess of the prices indicated in the letter of the Commissioner (Import), Mumbai, the duty demand is required to be set aside. 5. We have perused the records and heard both the sides. The valuation is being canvassed ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be done based on the values indicated in that letter. It is agreed by both sides that the duty of Rs. 4,27,236/- paid by the appellants at the time of provisional release of the goods is more than the duty payable based on the Mumbai valuation. In view of the above, the additional duty demand made cannot be sustained. 6. The impugned order has also confiscated the goods and imposed a redemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
