TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 08/10/2007. In respect of nine containers (except container IMo.TEXU 3337205) the allegation was that they mis declared the value although the description was found to be correct and in respect of the 10th Container the allegation was that the goods were found to be Crude Vegetable Oil and were also under valued. 2. The ld. AR during hearing merely reiterated the findings in the impugned order even as the appellants citing specifics contended that the inferences/conclusions by the adjudicating authority have been drawn without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 3. It is seen that the test reports in respect of nine containers categorically found that the goods were correctly declared as vegetable Fatty Acid. These goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mport data is not valid for the purpose of valuation in terms of Rules 5 and 6 of valuation Rules 1988 and "no further data pertaining to Rule 7/ 7A was available". Therefore the adjudicating authority went ahead to say that the value is determined under Rule 8 "on the basis of data available in India as discussed in detail in Para 18 to 20 above" which works out to USD 528 PMT CIF. We are unable to fathom as to how this value of US$ 528 PMT CIF has been arrived at as neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order throws any light as to how under Rule 8 his value has been arrived at. Therefore the determination of the value of the impugned goods contained in nine containers based on the import data of PFAD (which is not the same a....