TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingh, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appellant imported in May, 1996, two consignments of gum Arabic of Nigerian origin. One was a mixed grade III, for which it declared the price of US $ 325 per ton CIF and the other Sokoto grade II for which it had declared the CIF value of US $ 300 per ton. The notice issued to it proposed to enhance the value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mports from German trader were much less of 39.6 ton. After considering these submissions, the Commissioner has passed this order. He has based his order however mainly on instances of 15 imports relating to gum Arabic mixed grade III imported between March and July, 1996, ranging between US $ 430 and 510 per ton f.o.b. He therefore applied the price of US $ 500 for the mixed grade. He gave detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not have formed the basis of his order. 4. The departmental representative contends that the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractor v. CC [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321] is not applicable to the facts before us. He contends that there is a clear misdeclaration of value alleged in the notice. What the appellant declared was not the transaction value but invoice value. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allege that the value that was declared in the invoice was not the value which represented the consideration to be paid or payable by the buyer to the seller for supply of the goods. It only stated that "in terms of Section 14(1)(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962 r/w Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 the value declared cannot be accepted as the transaction value". This statement, according to us, does not im....