9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, invoices were raised by M/s. Bedeil General Trading LLC, Dubai, UAE at a unit price of USD 15 per kilogram. The assessment group did not accept the unit price declared by appellant and sought to enhance the same. Based on the directions of the higher courts, Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally at the value determined by the department and the goods were released to the appellant on the strength of 50% of the differential duty covered by the bank guarantee and the rest by personal bond. Thereupon, department issued Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2011 alleging that the goods have been undervalued and same has to be enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfy with regard to various parameters in the nature of quality, quantity and the manufacturer / supplier. For these reasons itself, the import of 25.11.2010 cannot be compared with that of the appellant's imports. The appellant had furnished details of various bills of entry for import of raw silk yarn in hank, from Uzbekistan through Chennai Port from 12.4.2010 to 30.11.2010. The value declared for these imports was between 13 to 15 USD per kilogram. The appellant in present case has declared the value as 15 USD per kilogram which reconciles with the imports during the relevant time. However, without giving any cogent reasons department has rejected the transaction value relying upon the single bill of entry dated 25.11.2010. The decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, merely because the value declared for the goods in a single Bill of Entry dated 25.11.2010 is 28 USD, the department has rejected the transaction value. It is not established that the commercial parameters as to quality, quantity, manufacturer are similar. The Tribunal in the case of Sree Rajendra Textiles (supra) had occasion to consider a similar issue and observed that the transaction value cannot be rejected without cogent reasons. 7. After appreciating the facts and following the proposition of law in the above case, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of duty, confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and penalty imposed cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 8. In the result, the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
