2004 (6) TMI 523

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 6,31,655/- respectively. The consignments were examined by officers of Customs, apprehending misdeclaration of value and description of the goods and discrepancies were noticed with regard to quantity, description and value of the goods. A case was booked on this basis. Investigation followed, in which a statement of the importer was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Certain market enquiries were also made as part of the investigations. From the results of the investigation, it appeared to the department that the goods had been heavily undervalued and hence were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The goods were seized. The party waived Show Cause Notice and urged for personal hearing. Nevert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se, New Delhi reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.), Wherein it was inter alia, held that a Show Cause Notice must be limited to the case that is made out therein. Ld. Counsel further submits that the lower authorities have illegally rejected the transaction value, to adopt a value based on a mere quotation. In this connection, Counsel has relied on Laxmi Colour Lab. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal). Ld. DR opposes (the above arguments and submits that as the importer had categorically agreed for enhancement of the value of the goods, other considerations are irrelevant. DR relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.). 3. ....