2022 (4) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he facts of the case are that the appellant imported Nixed lot of Polyester Knitted Fabric (Rolls of Assorted Colours & Weight) and filed bills of entry declared the value as agreed by the foreign supplier @ U.S. Dollar 1.04 per kg. The Adjudicating Authority found the goods as per declaration but without assigning any reason loaded the proposed loaded the assessable value to U.S. Dollar 1.77 per kg. lying on LS contract PO bills of entry where the assessable value was U.S. Dollar 1.77 per kg. The appellant paid the duty and took the delivery of the said goods and challenge the order of adjudication. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel of the appellant is that in appellant's own case some other imports this Tribunal held that wherein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent has assessed identical goods at the rate of 2.85 US $ per kg. whereas the value declared by the appellant ranges between 2.00 US $ to 2.63 US $ per kg. The price which has been adopted to be assessed is not the declared value. In fact, the same is the assessed value. Therefore, the said value cannot be said as the value of contemporaneous import. Similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Ravi Dyeware Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : 5.1 The enhancement of the value has been done under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. As per the said Rule, if more than one value is found, then the lowest of the such value shall be used to determine the value of the imported goods. In the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aneous can be adopted are well settled. A comparison of prices of goods of two distinct varieties, (i.e. nylon with polyester-nylon mix) and that too from two different countries is not permissible. Further, the price adopted was not the actual import price but the price enhanced by the Department which has been reportedly accepted. Such an enhanced price cannot be treated as transaction value of similar goods sought to be compared. We have not been shown any evidence of actual higher import price of similar goods which can be adopted for the present import. In view of the above, the orders of the Commissioner enhancing the assessable value cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the value of the imported go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X