2000 (8) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ta was set aside. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. Jupiter Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta had declared a price of US $ 114 FOB (US $ 119.20 CIF) per piece in respect of 75 sets Super VGA Color Monitor Model No. ND-14 3A/LR purchased and imported from the foreign supplier M/s. Spheriod (HK) Ltd., Hongkong. On having a serious doubt about the genuineness of the declared price, the Customs made enquiries and noticed that identical/similar goods of the same origin were imported at US $ 256 per piece directly from the manufacturer of goods and the prices of the identical/similar goods of the same origin imported were available in the market at significantly higher price even after giving deduction for duty and profit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....endorsed a copy of this letter, addressed to Asstt. Collr., SIB, certifying the genuineness of the price, to the Indian importer. (c)      The price paid or payable in respect of any imported goods would not represent the transaction value under Rule 4 ibid if it is at wide variance with such or like goods are sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade, where the buyer and seller are not related. 3.1. Shri J.M. Kennedy, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the reasoning contained in the aforementioned grounds of appeal. 4.  None appeared for the respondent despite the notice of hearing sent to him in advance. The respondent's Adv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is acceptable for customs purposes provided that examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. In the instant case there is no evidence brought by the Additional Collector whatsoever to prove beyond doubt that the Indian buyer and the Hongkong seller are related persons. He himself admits in the Order that the relationship between foreign seller and foreign buyer may not be relevant for purpose of Valuation Rules. Therefore, it seems that having failed in that enquiry, made with Taiwan manufacturer directly, the present Order somehow confiscated the goods in spite of a clear certificate given by the manufacturer. Therefore, the transaction value has been veri....