TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that: - as correctly observed by lower appellate authority, there is only a marginal difference in the unit price between the earlier assessed value and that finally assessed vide the adjudication. In view thereof, no reason can be alluded to the enhancement of assessable value to US$ 0.45/mtr based on the contemporaneous import prices suggested by the appellant themselves. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/387/2006 - Final Order No. 41222 / 2017 - Dated:- 3-7-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri A.K.Jayaraj made oral submissions which can be summarized as under : (i) Although the goods were placed under seizure, no show cause notice was issued as required under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act. In fact, department did not issue a SCN. Notice has to be served under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 before confiscation and hence the proceedings are ab initio improper and in keeping with the law. (ii) Respondent has not followed the Valuation Rules for determination of assessable value of present goods. (iii) Undervaluation must be proved by corroborative evidence. (iv) The department has not let in any tangible evidence to support the allegation of misdecl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dt. 10.1.2006 of original authority that summons had been issued to the Proprietor of M/s.Najma Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry to appear before department on 08.03.2005 and again on 16.03.2005. However, the importer did not appear on both the occasions. In response to the third summons for 28.03.2005, one Shri Mohamed Zackria, one of the Directors of the appellant-importer appeared and stated that he had negotiated the deal orally with the supplier, that they did not have any negotiation document or purchase order, that supplier is the trader and they did not have manufacturer's invoice and also admitted that they did not possess any country of origin certificate. 5.3 In the circumstances, what comes to the fore is that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en based on a contemporaneous import price, that too provided by the appellant themselves. This being so, they cannot now subsequently backtrack and find fault with the enhancement of the value. In any case, as correctly observed by lower appellate authority, there is only a marginal difference in the unit price between the earlier assessed value and that finally assessed vide the adjudication. In view thereof, no reason can be alluded to the enhancement of assessable value to US$ 0.45/mtr based on the contemporaneous import prices suggested by the appellant themselves. In view of the discussions herein above, no merit is found in the appeal for which reason the same is dismissed. ( Operative part of the order pronounced in court ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
