TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturer s price list and literature on the product in support of the declared value. However, the assessing authority proposed to enhance the value on the basis of a few contemporaneous imports from the same supplier. Two of these imports were in May 2000, three were in July 2000, one was in September 2000 and the last was in October 2000. Most of these imports were by the appellants themselves. Five of these imports covered a quantity of 20 MTs each and the remaining imports were of 40 MTs each. The unit price in all cases was USD 833 per MT. Vis-a-vis the above proposal for enhancement of value, the appellants cited another contemporaneous import of theirs, which was covered by Bill of Entry No. 37154 dated 1-12-2000, wherein the pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by all the 7 cases of contemporaneous imports cited by the assessing authority in support of enhancement of the value of the goods in question were shipped prior to the said date. The significance of 15-9-2000 was brought out by the assessee in reply to the letter issued to them by the assessing authority under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules. A letter dated 30-11-2000 issued by M/s. Forestal Mimosa Ltd. (suppliers) to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai also made the position clear to the Commissioner. This letter stated that the supplier-company, styled as a consortium of manufacturers/ suppliers of wattle extract, had decided to revise the price of the goods downward from USD 833 to USD 783 per MT (CIF-Chennai) after taking int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 15-9-2000, during which period the international price of the goods was USD 833 per MT. On the other hand, the shipments covered by the contemporaneous imports cited by the assessee were made after 15-9-2000 @ USD 783 per MT and this lower value was accepted by the Customs authorities. Reiterating the appellant s grievance, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by them was not considered by the authorities. He has also cited certain decisions, one of these being the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Karn Vir Mehta v. Collector of Customs - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 42 (Ker.), wherein manufacturer s invoice, if shown to be genuine, was held to be the best evidence of the price of imported goods and there was no need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
