TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pankaj Gandhi in Appeal Case No. C/625/05, M/s. Satyam Exim in Appeal Case No. C/626/05 and M/s. R.M. Corporation in Appeal Case No. 627/05 argues that the imported consignment of Nylon Yarn made during different periods had been arbitrarily valued by the Customs without any material evidence gathered for such valuation. Only because there was search conducted to the residential premises of M/s. R.M. Corporation, M/s. A.N. Sales Corporation and M/s. Satyam Exim, Revenue had made the allegation that the impugned consignments were undervalued. He pleads that in one batch of consignment, the valuation has been adopted to be 1.15 US $ while for the similar goods, the valuation adopted was 2.15 US $. Such method of valuation is not based on any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....challenges the adjudication order on the ground that the goods imported by the appellants were not tested in any laboratory to find out the contents of the goods for appropriate valuation. Learned Counsel opposes the evidence brought against the appellant submitting to be unreliable. Therefore, he prays that the statement of the buyer of the goods has no relevance when the customs failed to establish the character and nature of the goods sold by the appellants. Accordingly, all the three appeals may be allowed. Learned Counsel has also made a specific submission in the case of Pankaj Gandhi that the said appellant was neither been issued a show cause notice nor been charged with any offence. Therefore, there was a pre-determined mind to den....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods from the same manufacturer. Therefore, the valuation that was made by Revenue was on the same specification and that was not done arbitrarily as pleaded by the appellant's Counsel. 7. Learned DR relies on the decision in the case of Toplane v. CC (Prev.), Kolkata reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 95 (Tri.-Kol.) to support his submission that valuation if objectively done, remains unchallenged. The objective of the Revenue in this case was genuine. He also relies on the decision in the case of Sai Impex v. CC reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 616 (Tribunal) to contend that valuation is done to bring the goods to the reasonable value in the market. When the manufacturer's invoice was available, that was an important piece of evidence. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, without any cogent evidence on record, it is not possible to hold that the goods were comparable. Accordingly, two goods although look alike by two different eyes by no means be same for a third eye. Reliance by Revenue on Toplane's case for the valuation purposes is baseless when Revenue has failed to prove the identity of the goods for better comparison. 10. When we are unable to find that the goods were comparable, there is no necessity to enter into valuation. However, so far as the valuation is concerned, it is noticeable feature in this case is that subsequent to search, the goods were exposed to valuation @ 2.15 US $ while the same goods, before search was valued at 1.15 US $. When there is a huge gap in between these two peri....