TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (J)]. In this application the appellant Revenue seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We have heard the ld. SDR for the applicant. None has represented the respondents. However, their written submissions in opposition to the application have come on record. We have considered these submissions as well as the submissions of the ld. DR. 2. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer of Customs did not accept the reduced price of the vessel declared by the appellants in their Bill of Entry. He assessed the vessel provisionally to Customs duty on the basis of the original price of US $ 711,125 and the appellants paid the duty accordingly. This assessment was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs in his final assessment order dated 25-10-2002, against which the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain decisions of the Tribunal, also. In the written submissions of the respondents, they have referred to Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and have endeavoured to justify the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents, however, have not cited any case law in support of their contention. On examination of the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue and the written su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
