TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of export from China to India. Further it is also noticed that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the reason of price variation of goods submitted by the Appellant. It is also observed that other than Bills of entry of contemporaneous import, there is no other evidence to show that the assessee have suppressed the value. It is also observed that the appellant have relied upon various judgments on the disputed issue which Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had no occasion to consider. The judgments relied upon by the appellant shall apply directly only after verifying the facts of each case. Since the above issues have not been dealt in a proper manner by both the lower authorities, the matter needs to be reconsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration the aspect like sale at the same commercial level, substantially at the same qty. of goods and the transaction value of the imported identical goods. The lower adjudicating authority has held that the appellant itself had imported the same products at US $ 12.5 per Kg. vide previous Bill of Entry No. 4517591 dtd. 16.08.2019. Being aggrieved of the value loading, the appellant filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals filed were dismissed vide impugned order-in-appeal. Aggrieved, appellant have filed these appeals. 2. Shri Vijay N Thakkar, Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that in the impugned matter justification of Transaction value declared under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Importation. In the case of the appellant , the transaction value was 9.5$ per kg. of Qunizarine imported from china for export to India for delivery was only the price payable by them to their vendor at china, the same have to be considered as Transaction Value in terms of Section 14(1) ibid. 2.3 He further submits the value of imported goods in the month of August 2009 cannot be compared with the value of imported goods in the month of September 2019 and October 2019. Further, the adjudicating authority failed to brought on record any other evidence in loading the aforesaid value by considering the value of August 2019 as contemporary import in the month of September, 2019. The import in the month of August 2019 can in no way be consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms department is only on the basis of value of contemporaneous import by same importer (Appellant) from the same supplier. In the present matter the Appellant strongly argued that their submission and decisions relied upon by them were not properly considered by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. Further Ld. Commissioner has not taken cognizance of the fact and circumstance existed in china during the disputed period. We also find that appellant have strongly submitted before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the production of chemical Qunizarine in china, is highly polluting process and majority of manufacturer are based in China; that due to sudden strict Environment Regulation introduced by the Chinese Government, many producer could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
