2001 (11) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. -  The main issue in this appeal is the quantum of fine to be borne by the marble imported by the present appellants. The fact that the goods were restricted import and that the appellants did not possess a specific authority to import the same is not contested. One of the issues agitated is the quantum of fine. The other issue in agitati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he customs have the power to not to accept the transaction value in terms of the authority vested under Rule 10A of the said rules. The rule, however, requires an exercise to be undertaken by the authorities in rejecting the transaction value. No such exercise was undertaken. There is no justification for rejection of the transaction value. The mere observation that similar goods were cleared at a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nes as Rs. 15,000/- PMT. We, however, find that in the absence of colourwise bifurcation the Commissioner would be hard to put to the estimated total market price that the goods were capable of fetching. He thereafter fixed fine roughly of 150% of the CIF value. 5. Counsel at the time of hearing submitted that these goods were released pending adjudication in November, 1998 and the goods wer....