TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that a valuation dispute is involved in this case. The appellant had imported two consignments of Antimony and filed two bills of entry, one on 28-1-1999 and the other on 29-1-1999, declaring unit price of the goods as USD 1220 PMT and USD 1225 PMT respectively. The Customs authorities laid their hands on bill of entry No. 8511 dated 20-2-1999....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the price difference was on account of quantity difference. Hence the present appeal. 2. The learned counsel has reiterated the grounds of this appeal and the learned SDR has argued in support of the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that a total quantity of 40 MTs of Antimony was imported by the appellant. The two consignments were imported from different suppliers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly 5 MTs of Antimony imported by M/s. Indian Oxides and Chemicals Ltd. whereas the unit prices declared in the present case were for a total quantity of 40 MTs of identical goods. It is submitted that the differential price is attributable to the quantity difference. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this plea on the sole ground that this plea was not made before the lower authority. We ....