2004 (11) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enzhen Xin Mei Ge Industry Co. Ltd., China, through their Customs House Agent M/s. Cafco Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. The declared assessable value of the goods was Rs. 414/- per piece and the Revenue, relying on the E.mail originating from United Arab Emirates (UAE), enhanced the value to US $ 23 per piece which worked out to Rs. 1045/- per piece. The main contention of the assessee is that the transaction value has not been rejected in terms of Section14 of the Customs Act and the Department cannot enhance the value on the basis of E.mail originating from UAE, which is not contemporaneous evidence. It is neither invoice nor proof of import by another importer in India from the same country, place and time. It was also pointed out that the e.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4-2004, [2004 (178) E.L.T. 310 (T)] has relied on a large number of Apex Court and High Court rulings and has set aside the enhancement of valuation on the ground that the value cannot be enhanced based on unrealistic terms without relying on contemporaneous import. 3. The learned SDR defended the order and submitted that the E.mail was emanating from a dealer of the same goods dealing in UAE and it can be accepted as contemporaneous in nature. 4. On our careful consideration, we find that the Department has not relied on the valuation in terms of the Bill of Entries noted in the Show Cause Notice which was at the rate of Rs. 820/-, Rs. 820/- and Rs. 836.28 in respect of different models of GEEPAS VCD viz. model GVCD 2518, m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... view of the evidence available, the transaction value was rejected. So also in the case of P.K. Himatsingka & Co. wherein also the Department was able to produce price of identical goods supplied to another firm, which was comparable in nature. In the present case, the only ground taken by the Revenue is the admission made by the appellant at the time of investigation by DRI agreeing for enhancement of value to US$ 325. However, in the reply to the show cause notice, he has retracted his admission and stated that the valuation adopted by the Revenue is not comparable with the goods imported from Dubai of Thailand origin. The department is attempting to compare goods with goods of Japanese origin. In terms of Sec. 14, the goods are required....