TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-4-2004. The declared unit prices were US $ 20.40 and US $ 20.10 respectively. The assessments were made by enhancing these prices to US $ 21.40 and US $ 21.32 respectively and release of the goods was allowed on this basis without any test for grade. After a few months, based on intelligence received by SIIB of the Customs House, action was initiated by the department to recover anti-dumping duty from the importer in respect of the above goods. Accordingly, show-cause notices were issued to the party alleging that the raw silk imported by them must be of grade 2A and below and therefore AD duty was leviable thereon. This demand was contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group-7) confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of AD duty. The adjudicating authority also dances to its tune, oblivious or regardless of the reality that the quality of the imported raw silk, in terms of grade to be ascertained, was determinative of the question whether the commodity was subject to AD duty. The Deputy Commissioner thinks that the importer had agreed to minimal enhancement of value of the goods with intent to evade payment of AD duty. He rejects the assessee's submission that they had not given their consent for such enhancement of value and that the department had suo motu loaded the value. The episode ends with the Deputy Commissioner confirming the demand of AD duty against the party. We would rather say that the episode has been given a befitting burial by the ap....