TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious imports made by the appellant during the same time, the transaction value remained the same. It is also noted that revenue has not brought on records any evidence to indicate that the appellant and the supplier were in collusion to suppress the value nor there is any corroborative evidence of suppression of the value or repartition of any amount over and above the invoiced value. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, rejection of transaction value as declared is incorrect and such order is unsustainable. The ratio of the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Basant Industries [1995 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and the decision of Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Co. [2003 (8) TMI 423 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission that enhancement of value on the basis of Spices Market Weekly is not correct and permitted. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Basant Industries - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C) for the proposition that comparison of invoices is not conclusive for determination of question of under valuation. It is his submission that the Tribunal in the case of Radhey Shyam Ratanlal - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 244 has laid down that declared value has to be accepted, if it is transaction value unless the same is rejected and found incorrect, then only Valuation Rules are applicable and contemporaneous imports of different time quality and quantity cannot be used for enhancement of value. It is the submission that identical view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the imports made by the appellant was in January 2001. We are of the view that a value declared by an importer who had imported the consignment four months, after the consignment cleared, is not in consonance of the provisions of the Customs Act, as on the day of import there seems to be no contemporaneous imports and the value declared by the appellant was accepted. Again we are not in the position to come to a conclusion whether the imports made in May 2001, were solitary imports or regular imports. At the same time we note that various imports made by the appellant during the same time, the transaction value remained the same. It is also noted that revenue has not brought on records any evidence to indicate that the appellant and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
