2012 (11) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant has challenged the loading of value on the imported goods made by the adjudicating authority on the basis of contemporaneous imports made at Chennai Port. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported certain electronic goods i.e., MCCB and DHL. On examination of the goods, it was found on the packing box of the impugned goods that the country of origin was mentioned as Japan inste....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for supply to Japan for some other customers. In support of this contention, he placed on record two certificates issued by their foreign supplier to that extent confirming that the goods are meant for Japanese customers and as their Japanese customer did not accept the goods, the same goods were sent to the appellant. Therefore, the allegation that country of origin is wrong has been explained by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsidered their submission. 6. We find that there are two issues involved in the matter: (a) What is the country of origin; and (b) issue of under valuation. 6(a) Country of Origin : We have seen the records and the appellant has produced a letter issued by their supplier dated 20/11/2002 which clearly implicate that the impugned goods are manufactured by the supplier of the goods who are the act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt made at Chennai Port of similar goods. It is the contention of the appellant that the goods imported at Chennai Port are not similar goods which they have submitted in their reply to show cause notice saying that the goods imported by them are of the quality of NF-CS whereas the imports made at Chennai Port are of NF-SS. Therefore, the goods are not comparable or similar goods. Further, the app....