TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.K.Jaiswal, SDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the impugned order of the original Adjudicating Authority enhancing the assessable value of the imported consignment of worn clothing, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri K.K. Jaiswal, ld. SDR appearing for Revenue. No one appeared for the Respondent. 2. As per the facts on record, the respondents imported a consignment of worn clothing and filed Bill of Entry, dated 2-7-2007 declaring the assessable value of the same as US $ 0.20 per Kg. (CIF). Inasmuch as the import of worn clothing and used articles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceptions stipulated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules are applicable; that the Commissioner (Appeals) in an identical import of worn clothing by M/s. Venus Traders have allowed their appeal; that there is no allegation or proof of any additional payment made to the foreign supplier; that in any case, keeping in view the nature of the goods i.e. worn clothing, there can be no two identical or similar imports inasmuch as the old and used clothing in each consignment would be different in quality, use of clothes, types of clothing etc. For the above proposition, they relied upon various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court as also of the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order accepted the above stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. There is also nothing on record that there was any special relationship between the Appellants and the foreign supplier or the appellants had paid anything extra over and above the transaction value. In the Order-in-Appeal Nos. CC(A)05/ICD/D-II/2007, dated 16-1-2007, 49/Cus./Appl/DLH-IV/07 and 50/Cus./Appl/DLH-IV/07 both, dated 13-7-2007 (copy placed on record by the appellants), I had dealt with the same valuation issue of worn clothings/other worn articles and in those cases I had allowed the appeals by rejecting the enhanced assessable value. Therefore, in the present case also, I do not see any reason to differ with my above orders-in-Appeal on the valuation aspect. 4. However, as regards the confiscability of the goods on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decision in the case of M/s. Gaitri Export refers (supra) would be fully applicable to the facts of the case. Furthermore, we also find that there is no allegation, much less any allegation to the effect that any additional payments were made by the respondent to their foreign supplier. In the absence of the same and in view of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of the valuation aspect. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly applied the precedent decisions to the facts of the case and has rightly rejected the Revenue s stand on the assessable value of the goods. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. (Pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
