Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2004 (4) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....through their authorised Clearing Agent, M/s. Kapoor & Co. imported "Monosodium Glutamate" from Taiwan. The value shown in the invoice was at the rate of U.S. $ 665.00 per M.T., CIF. During the course of investigation, it revealed that the goods were undervalued. The Commissioner determined the value of the goods in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 at the lowest price i.e. U.S. $ 737.00 per M.T. All the evidences collected were shown to the importer's representative and they agreed to it. The importer vide its letter dated 31st October, 2002 agreed to enhance the value and also agreed to dispense with the formality of issuance of notice and personal hearing. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata determined the value of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, in case of individual, he himself must sign the memo of appeal, in case of Company by Principal Officer, in case of Firm by partner, in case of association by principal officer or any member of the association in any other case, any person competent to act on his behalf. 6. In the present case, the proprietor of the firm is Jitendra Kumar Jain, so memo of appeal and the verification must be signed by Shri Jitendra Kumar whereas it has been signed by one Shri Jai Prakash Rathi, so the appeal may be rejected. He further submits that as per the Appeal No. CDM-200/2003, the delay in filing the appeal has not been explained. The petitioner has admitted that he received copy of the order on 27th July, 2003. Shri....