TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the said agreement, Galaxy Enterprise of Hong Kong despatched the consignment of plastic body, plastic lens camera packed in 750 cartons and forwarded the Bill of Lading, Insurance Policy, Invoice, Packing List and Certificate of Origin. On 24th July, 2002, the said consignment arrived at Kolkata Port. The Bill of Entry was duly assessed by the Customs Authorities and the goods were examined by the Customs Authorities on 13th August, 2002 and the same were found to be corresponding to the declaration made by the appellant in the said Bill of Entry. On specific intelligence that a consignment of cameras were being cleared by one M/s. Pioneer Impex, 15/95, Beadonpura, Gurdwara Road, New Delhi-5, by gross misdeclaration of description val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes for the appellant submit that the transacted value of the appellant is rejected on the basis of his failure to produce the manufacturer's invoice. He submits that in the present case the import has been made from a trader and not from the manufacturer. The procurement of manufacturer's invoice by the importer from the overseas trader is not under the control of the importer. The manufacturer's invoice is a privileged document of the supplier and is in exclusive control with the supplier. The importer cannot insist to supply the manufacturer's invoice. He submits that it is well settled that merely for failure to produce manufacturer's invoice, the transacted value cannot be rejected. He has relied upon an order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by the appellants is plastic body with plastic lens cameras. In other words, he submits that the declaration of the cameras and the particulars thereof, has been accepted by the Commissioner under the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the order of the Commissioner be set aside. 5. In reply to the above contention of the ld. Advocate of the appellant, ld. JDR, Shri J.R. Madhiam, submits that the Commissioner has rightly rejected the transaction value. He has further supported the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner. He submits that the appeal may kindly be rejected. 6. In the present case, transaction value has been rejected on two counts. Firstly, the importer could not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... description of the goods imported on 18-10-2002 subsequent to the import made by the appellant. The description of the goods were different. The Commissioner in his order, has mentioned that the goods are identical/same. It shows that the Commissioner himself was not sure about the description of the goods which was compared. So far the price of the goods is concerned, it varies on the basis of quantity and can be negotiated on the basis of quantity. There may be a difference in price of the same article supplied in bulk quantity in comparison to another purchasers of small quantity. Same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in Basant Industries v. Addl. Collector reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.). In the present case, 90,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
