TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -93094/2016-WZB/CB - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T) None, for the Appellant. Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against Orders-in-Appeal No: 07/2005 MCH, dated 24-12-2004 and 29/2005 MCH, dated 7-1-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. Since the appeals are of 2005 we take up the same for disposal even in the absence of any representation. Heard the learned Authorised Representative and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding DEPB credit on the expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue declared by the appellant of Rs. 304/- per piece which is comparable in the market and similar identical goods having exported during the relevant period which were at or similar price during the relevant period. It is their further submission that the First Appellate Authority has not considered the reasoned order passed by the adjudicating authority who has caused examination as per Standing Order No. 7777/2003, dated 20-3-2003. 5. Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the First Appellate Authority and submits that Shri Mohan Lal, proprietor has not been able to explain properly from where he has purchased the T-shirts and to whom it has been exported. 6. We find that the First Appellate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n only on the basis of opinion and intelligence or prima facie evidence and it should be first recorded before obtaining orders of Additional Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs to do market verification and he has to record a finding. In this case except for difference in declared PMV and FOB no other prima facie evidence, reasons/information is recorded. 6.4 Fourthly, the adjudicating authority has relied upon the analogy of the Tribunal in the case of Mitexo and Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs (EP) vide Order No. C-I/709-712/WZB-2003, dated 13-3-2003 [2003 (155) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal)] on the same issue. 7. In our considered view the adjudicating authority was correct in accepting the declared FOB value as correct. The First App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
