TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the declared value for the purpose of assessment of customs duty. 2. A show cause notice was issued on 14-2-2002 on the appellant in connection with clearances of 4855 pieces of suitcases of the sizes of 20" to 32" at the unit price FOB of US$ 5.99 (for 20" size to US$ 10.17 for 32") size under bill of entry No. 1038 dated 29-1-2002 alleging that on comparison made with the contemporaneous import of identical goods of the same brand under bill of entry No. 000642-DEPB dated 29-9-2001, the declared value was found to be exceptionally low. It was alleged that the appellant who was asked to submit manufacturer's invoice/price list and to justify the genuineness of the declared value in comparison with the earlier consignment did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the manufacturer was being submitted. 4. The learned Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the material on record held that the invoice of the previous consignment was self-explanatory as far as difference between the size, quality of inputs etc. was concerned and that the calculations regarding value of inputs shown by the party for comparison were arrived at just to support their claim by "reverse mathematical calculation". It was found that the appellant tried to convince the department to accept totally unrealistic prices. On the issue of contemporaneous nature of the transaction, it was observed that there was no hard and fast rule, as regards time of imports and even subsequent import within reasonable period, would be relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n nature and they did not affect the price specially. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the authorities below have not considered the material evidence on record, which clearly indicated the transaction value in respect of the suitcase which were of different types than the types of suitcase which were imported under the previous consignment. It was also argued that no attention was paid by the authorities below regarding difference in quality and the decision was reached merely with reference to the explanation sheet which in fact highlighted the differences in the quality that went unnoticed. It was also submitted that while the show cause notice was on the footing that the goods imported under the on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....graph 2(d) that, "Input used in the current consignment is also of cheaper quality. Inputs like handle system, trolley, top and side handles, lining material, quick snaps, base studs etc. are of cheaper quality". It was also contended that the design of items of this consignment was different from the previous consignment and style and number, and models were all different. The previous consignment and the present consignments were imported from different suppliers and the size of the items were different. In paragraph 5 of reply to the show cause notice invoice from the manufacturer was also submitted. The invoices which were on record in respect of the present consignment show that the goods tallied with the invoice of the manufacturer M/....