2000 (7) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18-9-1994 was submitted by the appellants. Thereafter, the goods were assessed as per declaration made by the appellants and the same were cleared on payment of duty. 2. Subsequently, an investigation was conducted to ascertain the price of the identical goods. It was felt that the price declared by the appellants was lower than the price at which the identical goods were being cleared from different Customs House. Ultimately, a show cause notice dated 13-10-1996 was issued to the appellants proposing to enhance the value of the imported goods to US $ 35.65 and to confirm the differential duty on the basis of the same. Proposal was also made to confiscate the imported goods and to impose penalty upon the impugned Order and also to a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied upon by the Revenue and as such, the other imports cannot be considered as contemporaneous so as to adopt the value of the same. He, further, submitted that the transaction-value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules has to be adopted, unless the same is shown to be not the correct value. In support of the above submissions, he relied upon various decisions. 5. He also submitted that the goods were cleared in the year, 1994, whereas the show cause notice was issued in the year, 1996. Therefore, the notice is clearly barred by limitation. He also submitted that there is no suppression inasmuch as the entire evidence was placed before the Customs Authorities. As such, the exten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ical or similar goods conforming to the requirements of Rules 5 and 6, is available and as such, he has proceeded ahead to fix the assessable value under Rule 8, by making a reasonable adjustment. The invoice price declaring the goods to be of US $ 13.50 per piece has been rejected, inasmuch as the value of the said goods has been found to be more than double (in fact, nearing 3 times) in respect of the imports made within a span of six months from the date of importation. We find that apart from the evidences relating to the different countries of origin, there are evidences showing import of Floppy Discs of the same country of origin i.e. Malayasia, at a much higher price. The adjudicating authority has observed that there is no dispute t....