1991 (6) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued by them. They filed a Bill of Entry No. 001045 dated 4-10-1990. While so, a show cause notice was issued on 29-10-1990 alleging misdeclaration of the country'of origin on the ground that they declared in the B/E Hongkong as the country of origin whereas the country of origin actually is Japan. It is also alleged that the appellants have under-invoiced the value of goods. This allegation is based on a contemporary Invoice No. I/S2 dated 23-3-1990 for Hongkong dollars 8880 FOB. On receipt of reply, the Addl. Collector enhanced the value against which the appellants have come up in appeal before us. 3. Shri Asthana appearing for the appellants submitted that the declared value is US $ 645.00 (C&F) enhanced value is HK $ 8800 (FOB). Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitted that the Addl. Collector appears to have relied upon Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and the said rule, according to him, is not applicable as there is difference in the time of import and quality of goods and also, the commercial level. In other words, the so-called identical import of M/s. Mash Leather is by an actual user whereas the appellant is a regular importer. Therefore, Rule 5 is not applicable. He submitted that since the transaction value is genuine and since Rule 5 is not applicable and since there is no other evidence, the transaction value should be accepted. 4. Shri Satish Kumar reiterated the order of the Collector. 5. The Collector while enhancing the asse....