TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to as batteries]. The value declared by the respondent was 0.25 USD per piece. On being found that the said value declared by the importer seems to be abnormally lower the authorities conducted an investation. The adjudicating authority issued a query memo, which was answered by the importer. After considering the submissions made by the importer, the adjudicating authority enhanced the price of batteries imported by the respondents. Aggrieved by such order, the importer preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has set aside the order in original. Hence this appeal. 2. Learned DR. would submit that the sale contract dated 15-7-04 relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearing without any objection on the value declared in the contract. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the following finding : ...... Further, from the sales agreement and contract submitted by the appellant, it is seen that the price has been arrived at on a condition that the buyer shall undertake to buy not less than two containers of batteries and that the agreement is valid for one year from 16-7-04 to 15-7-05 and further the appellant has to buy not less than 10000 pieces of batteries per month during the duration of this agreement. As already mentioned above, the appellant had imported more than 4 lakhs pieces of such batteries during the period August 2004 to December 2004 and hence it is seen that he has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplier recently and hence the comparison would appear to be incorrect and hence it has to be held that the enhancement of the value done in terms of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules is incorrect and cannot be sustained. I, therefore, hold that the batteries will have to be assessed to duty based on the declared value of 0.25 USD (C F) per piece. 5. We find from the above factual findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the argument and case for enhancement of the value, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the product is imported on the basis of a contract in existence. There is no contrary evidence brought on record by the appellant. On this factual finding, we find that the impugned order is legal and correct and does not require any i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
