1999 (7) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../99-CAU, dated 15-6-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, wherein dry ginger imported under two Bills of Entry were confiscated and allowed on redemption fine after holding that there was an under-declaration of value and the enhanced price fixed was US $ 1200 per MT. The said valuation was done under Customs Valuation Rules. The learned Advocate submits that when the matter was being considered by the learned original authority, the appellants were not in a possession of certain evidence in the form of copies of Bill of Entry covering imports of similar goods at Mumbai. Therefore, this Miscellaneous application for permission to submit these as evidence as contemporaneous imports of same goods at Mumbai. 3. Heard learned DR S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that since there was no evidence of contemporaneous imports led before him, he has straight away proceeded to fix the assessable value under Rule 8 thereof. The learned Advocate submits that in the meantime, the imports have been noticed at the Mumbai Port, where the Customs has fixed the assessable value at US $ 800 per MTs. These imports are on or about the same period as is covered by this appeal. Therefore, the learned Commissioner's order impugned fixing the assessable value under Rule 8 is not correct under law. In this connection, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of N.K. Aggarwal v. CC as reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 83 (T), wherein it was laid down that contemporaneous value has to be accepted and that it was open ....