TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which was not accepted by the Customs authorities, who wanted to enhance the value on the strength of certain contemporaneous imports of similar goods. The party waived show cause notice and availed an opportunity of personal hearing. The Commissioner of Customs rejected the aforesaid transaction value and ordered enhancement of the value to US$ 3 per yard on the basis of value of similar goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 26050 dated 20-12-99 which related to the import of a quantity of 1566 yards of fabrics from the same country of origin (Korea). On this basis, the Commissioner worked out the value of the appellants' goods at Rs. 37,07,480/-. He also ordered confiscation of the goods, giving option to the importer to redeem the same on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fact that the goods were a 'stock lot' of assorted descriptions. In order to establish the acceptability of the transaction value for the purpose of valuation, the appellants had brought on record, inter alia, the packing list of the manufacturer, which accompanied the consignment. The Counsel has drawn our attention to the annexure to the packing list, which shows that the consignment consisted of polynosic/polyester mixed woven fabrics of various descriptions, colours and dimensions. According to ld. Counsel, this piece of evidence, which established the assorted nature of the imported goods, was not properly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. It is his further submission that the large quantity of 28,000 yards of fabrics impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that neither the submissions contained in the two letters were considered nor the request for further hearing entertained by the Commissioner. The impugned order is therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. The Counsel has cited numerous decisions of the Tribunal in support of his arguments on the merits of the case. Some of them are the following :- (1) Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai [1999 (108) E.L.T. 307] (This decision has been relied on in support of the plea that, once it is found that the imported goods are a stock-lot of assorted descriptions, it is an accepted commercial practice in international trade that the price will be at the reduced one). (2) R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dly in both cases. An allowance was given by the Commissioner on account of the difference in quantity between the two imports also. In the light of these facts and circumstances, no fault whatsoever can be found in the order of the Commissioner, submits ld. DR. He prays for upholding the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions. We find that the goods imported by the appellants were described as Polynosic/Polyester mixed woven fabrics (70% polynosic and 30% polyester) in the import documents. Samples were drawn and tested. The test report revealed the composition as 72.6% polynosic and 27.4% polyester. This result has gone uncontested. Hence, we find that this test result covers the entire consignment. The classificati....