TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the assessee. No representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request for adjournment. The respondent is represented by SDR. We are not inclined to keep this old appeal pending any longer. 2. The respondents had imported GROSEOFULVIN IP 96 from Hong Kong and filed bill of entry dated 30-12-1999. The goods were supplied by M/s. Kopran (Hong Kong) Ltd. The importer declared uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waived show-cause notice and personal hearing in the matter. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 2) loaded the unit price of the goods to USD 55.72 per kg. CIF on the basis of the aforementioned bills of entry dated 28-9-1999 and 29-7-1999 under Rule 5 ibid. Against this decision, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority upheld the decision of the Deput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods for the purpose of Rule 5 should have been identified by the lower authorities in terms of Rule 2(c) and the same should have been shown to have been contemporaneously imported at higher value than the one declared by the assessee. The definition of identical goods under Rule 2(c) reads as under : Identical goods means imported goods - (i) which are same in all respects includin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities to designate the goods as identical under Rule 2(c) inasmuch as the Rule required comparison of physical characteristics, quality, reputation etc. Obviously, this was not even attempted as rightly pointed out by the appellant. More important is the fact that no valid reason whatsoever was stated by any of the lower authorities for rejecting the transaction value. The authorities di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
