9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case are that the appellant herein had imported various consignments of CRGO of different grades, viz., M3/M4/M5 etc. and filed Bills of Entry for assessment and clearance of imported consignment before the Customs authorities. However, the value declared in the Bills of Entry was rejected by the department in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007 and the same was re-determined under Rule 5 ibid. In support of rejection of the declared value and re- determination of the same under Rule 5 ibid, the original authority in his order dated 16.10.2012 had referred to the goods imported under the subject Bills of Entry vis-à-vis the contemporaneous higher import price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the adjudication order dated 16.10.2012 at page 1 has prepared the chart, showing the reference of subject goods imported by the appellant herein and the contemporaneous import price of identical/similar goods imported at a higher price by some other importer. On perussal of the description/grade/quantity of the impugned goods mentioned in the said order dated 16.10.2012, we find that the original authority had referred to the description as CRGO-M3, M4, M5 etc. Whereas, on comparison of the said description with other particulars mentioned in the original order vis-à-vis the import documents, viz., Bills of Entry, Purchase Order etc., we find that the reference of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove observations. Needless to say, that opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the appellant before deciding the issue afresh. 8. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Technical) PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the arguments that for the purpose of Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007, for comparison of value of the contemporaneous import of similar or identical goods under Rule 4 or 5 or in terms of Rule 12, it should be on the basis of transaction value and not on the basis of the loaded assessable value. For placing this argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
