9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. 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 represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per contemporaneous export price the value per piece was Rs. 315/- and was accepted by the department and FOB value of Rs. 310/- for similar goods were also accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (E) in an order dated 7-12-2001 after detailed verification. On the basis of such findings he accepted the declared value as correct. This order-in-original was reviewed and an appeal was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparable export goods and for the comparable destinations has been accepted in the range of Rs. 310/- to Rs. 315/- per piece before or after December, 2001 and similar export prices have been accepted during the comparable period in case of exports of the same appellant. It is also on record that the adjudicating authority on scrutiny found that declared value of Rs. 310/- per pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 Appellate Authority has not considered the issue in a proper perspective and in a routine manner, set aside the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
