1997 (7) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the para 30 of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner based his conclusion on the invoice price of M/s. Toho Corporation which is US DOLLARS 10.68 per mtr. The invoice is dated 22-7-1995. M/s. Shiv Om Impex was also another importer and the adjudicating authority took this also into consideration. Thereby, the price was US DOLLARS 11 per mtr. and the date of the invoice was 22-6-1995. Since the invoice of M/s. Toho Corporation is nearer to the present import, he adopted this value of 10.68 per mtr. 3. The learned Advocate Shri A.K. Jayaraj appearing for the Appellant contended before us that this invoice of M/s. Toho Corporation is annexed with page 4 of the paper book. In this connection, he pointed out that in the stat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n our view, is sufficient for remanding the case for a de novo adjudication to the adjudicating authority. 5. Added to this, it was pointed by the learned Advocate Shri Jayaraj that in page No. 24 of para 28 of the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority held as follows :- "The Advocate has contended that samples were drawn by the DRI and Madras Customs House and the test result was not disclosed to them. I do concede that the test reports of the samples should have been furnished to the importer. In view of the constraint of time as the adjudication order has to be passed within a specified period this could not now be given to the party. However, I find that the test report will not be of any use to the importer as i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ters as well as the appellant himself at a lower price which was produced before the adjudicating authority. But on a perusal of the impugned order, we observe that the adjudicating authority has not adverted to these documents produced by the Appellants and no discussion is made in this regard. We observe that when an importer has produced certain documents with respect to contemporaneous imports, it was expected that the adjudicating officer should advert to these documents and give a positive findings as to how these documents are reliable and as to on what reasons the same should not be relied upon. There should be a discussion in this regard and a clear finding should have been recorded. Not having adverted to these all the documents, ....