TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted has also been produced. The lower authorities have however not addressed these evidences nor have they distinguished or demolished the same - in any case, the difference between the declared value and enhanced value is around 27% which could be ascribed not only on account of differences in the features between the two machines but also on account of the five months interregnum period between the two imports. Reliance is placed on the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in Basant Industries Vs Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1995 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it has been laid down that mere comparison of invoices received by the importer with the invoices of imports of same goods by other importer is not conclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are before this forum. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri B. Satish Sundar made oral submissions which can be broadly summarised as under : (i) The lower authorities have rejected the transaction value without any basis and without following the mandate prescribed in the Customs Valuation Rules. (ii) The lower authorities failed to consider the explanation that difference in value for the machinery purchased in 2005 exactly should not be compared against the costlier 2004 model, since other changes had been made to make the machinery cheaper to compete with the Korean and Chinese market. Appellants also produced catalogue and explanation of the supplier for price variatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have gone through the facts. From the facts, it is seen that the declared price of ₹ 30,64,466/- for the goods imported vide Bill of Entry dt. 30.3.2005 was enhanced to ₹ 37,00,000/-. The basis for this enhancement was a purported identical model imported by different importer vide their Bill of Entry No.731210 dt. 20.12.2004 wherein the import price was ₹ 39,85,800/-. What stands out in this entire controversy is that right from the beginning appellants have been representing that the model imported by them had lesser features than the one sought to be compared by department which had been imported in 2004. Towards this end, appellant had produced catalogue, explanation of the supplier for the price variation and also ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
