2011 (3) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....US$ 0.570 per kg. depending on the thickness of tiles. The original authority called upon the importer to produce price catalogue in original, manufacturer's product catalogue, price list, analysis certificate, composition and other related documents. The importer, who was not in a position to produce the original documents, expressed willingness to clear the goods on payment of duty under protest. Accordingly, the goods were assessed to duty on the basis of contemporaneous import price of Rs. 32/-per kg. which was obtained from the following bills of entry. Sr. No. B/E No. Date Value in Rupees per kg. 1. 705770 29.03.2007 35.59 2. 735438 24.04.2007 34.87 3. 802717 19.06.2007 32.00 4. 801444 16.06.2007 32.00 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f goods' and therefore could not be considered as contemporaneous imports, and also noted that 'the goods of both the suppliers i.e. M/s. Nan Ya and M/s. Novalis differ in PVC contents and same cannot said to be alike or similar'. The appellate authority accordingly set aside the valuation done by the lower authority under Rule 6. The goods were ordered to be reassessed on the basis of the transaction value 'in the absence of proper and valid evidence to controvert the invoice price'. The present appeal of the Revenue is directed against the appellate Commissioner's decision. 2. The learned JDR has reiterated the grounds of appeal. He also relies on the decisions cited in the memo of appeal.  He has particularly submitted that, as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The country of origin was also not disclosed, nor the size and PVC content of the goods. The enhancement of value made by the original authority is clearly unsustainable in law for breach of natural justice. This infirmity of the proceedings of the original authority was brought to the notice of the appellate authority, but the same was ignored. On the other hand, the appellate authority recorded certain factual findings after apparently examining particulars of the contemporaneous imports made by the respondent from M/s. Novalis (Taiwan). It noted that these imports were made from some other suppliers and that the goods were of different grades. These results were compared with the subject-imports and it was held that the imports from M/s....