2002 (5) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bills of Entry Nos. 28 and 29 both dated 3-9-96. 2. The appellant imported two consignments consisting of two containers each declared to contain 20,000 metres of cloth from Korea. Bills of Entry dated 3-9-96 was filed for assessment of goods claiming classification under sub-heading No. 5907.00 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Suspecting undervaluation/misdeclaration of the goods they were subjected to examination. Representative samples were drawn for testing. Both the consignments were shipped from Korea by M/s. Kabul Synthetics Company Ltd. Under the invoices price of the material was shown @ 1.35 US $ per metre. Payment has been made through the Bank to M/s. Vastraco Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. It appeared to the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there is no reason to reject the transaction value. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors v. Commissioner - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 it was submitted that if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. He also contended that the Revenue has wrongly placed reliance on the payment routed through a third party in order to discredit the transaction value of the appellant. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, pointed out that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to mis-declare the article impo....