TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LME prices are, at best only indicative and are not final and conclusive, to enable relying upon the same for enhancement of value. Appellant’s appeal is allowed in so far as valuation aspect is concern - the value declared by the appellant through the said Bill of Entry No.5634075 dated 28.05.2014 is restored. In so far as declaration about goods was concerned, the appellant declared that they imported 1.68 MTs of Copper Scrap whereas it was found that 2.1304 MTs Copper Scrap was imported and Copper and Iron Scrap were mixed, as found during examination - this impugned order is not interfered with, in so far as the same is concerned about mis-declaration, confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The appeal is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have 26.63 MTs of Iron and Copper mix and 15.460 MTs of Aluminum Scrap. It appeared to revenue that description and quantity of Iron and Copper scrap was different than declared and they were found to be in mixed form. It further appeared to revenue that Copper scrap was declared to be 1.68 MT whereas actually it was found to be 2.1304 MTs. Therefore, there was a proposal to issue a show cause notice to the appellant which was waived by the appellant through letter dated 03.06.2012. The matter was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 25.07.2014. The Original authority has held that for import of mixed scrap authorization from DGFT was required and also that the goods were found to be different than the description given in the Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. He further argued that this Tribunal in the case of M/s Shiva Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi reported at 2006 (196) ELT 212 (Tri.-Del.) has held that London Metal Exchange Bulletin prices are not in accordance with the valuation provision and therefore they cannot be accepted for adopting valuation and that the prices, at the best only indicate about price variation. He has further submitted that the reliance by learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this Tribunal s decision in the case of Aarti Impex is not applicable because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has described it as Larger Bench decision whereas no such Larger Bench was constituted to decide any such issue and that the conclusion drawn by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice value. Further, there is no allegation or evidence to show that the importer has made extra payment to the foreign supplier, in addition to the value reflected in the invoice. As such, we find no justifiable reason to uphold the impugned orders. The same are accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. The said finding was differed by Technical Member and as per para-15 of the said order, Technical Member has held that the appeal deserves to be rejected in respect of batteries. He did not propose to reject the appeal in respect of other goods such as ladies and gents footwear and socks. Further, the point of difference in opinion recorded to be resolved by Third Member was as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
