2006 (9) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ILM FOR CAR (ASSORTED COLOUR)   1. 152CM*61M    753 8.50       $ 6,400.50 2. 50CM*6M 1,600 0.32          $ 512.00 3. 20CM*61M      50 2.40          $ 120.00 4. 50CM*61M      20 2.80            $ 56.00 TOTAL   2,423 ROLLS   US $ 7,088.50   SAY TOTAL US DOLLARS SEVEN THOUSAND AND EIGHTY EIGHT AND CENTS FIFTY ONLY. The consignment was assessed provisionally and cleared. Subsequently, under adjudication order, the Assistant Commissioner o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ods having the same application/use vide B/E 472236 dated 17-3-2003 by M/s. Rusestar Exim (P) Ltd., Chennai where the declared price is US $ 50,330 which works out to US $ 0.0508 per sq. ft. = Rs. 2.43 per sq. ft. Although this evidence relates to imports made after the importation of M/s. Garg Diesel's yet the period of difference between the two imports being a mere one month gives one sufficient reasons to observe that, just within a period of one month, the price of the subject goods cannot fluctuate (in this case rise) to the extent as notified between the two imports. Accordingly, this gives me sufficient reason to conclude that the declared value of M/s. Garg Diesel is not the correct transaction value in terms of Rule 4 of the Custo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s also being submitted that the rejection of the appellant's contentions (relating to import being from the manufacturer and earlier imports at the same prices had been accepted) was incorrect. Learned counsel has also pointed out that under a 30th July 2004 order of the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping, the designated authority had found that 'Sun Control Film' was being dumped into India from Taiwan and had proposed imposition of anti-dumping duty. The point made is that these items were being supplied to India at lower prices in general and that the particular import of the appellant was not at a concessional price and that there was no misdeclaration of value. 4.Learned SDR would point out that October 2002 price could not constit....