9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - for the appellants. Rep. by Shri Pradeep Juneja, AR - for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. This is second round of litigation. The impugned order was passed in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 16.03.2016. The Tribunal in the said final orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain whether imports are of identical goods in same commercial level and transaction. He submitted that they have details of imports of identical /similar goods through various ports during the period from Feb. 2008 to July, 2008. The assessable value varies from Rs. 80.12 to Rs. 102.84. He further submitted that the transaction value is bonafide and genuine and rejection of the same requires evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yard in these bills of entry. It is not clear as to how the said bills of entries were compared with the present bills of entries. For arriving at the contemporaneous value, the level of transaction should be comparable in all aspects. Such comparison should take into account the country of origin, quantity imported, terms of such import and period of period, etc. In the present case, on perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed principle that lowest price of such comparable value will be considered for re-determination of value of goods, whose original declared value was rejected. None of these principles have been followed in the present assessment. Accordingly, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
[Order dictated & pronounced in open court] X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
