AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily in perfumery, in pharmacy or for insecticidal, fungicidal or similar purpose, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered." 2. The appellant also produced invoice describing the consignments as Lovage from M/s. Mustafa Enterprises, Karachi. Since the import of Lovage from SAARC countries was exempt from import licencing, the appellant produced 'SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (Sapta) certificate' dated 16th April 1999 from the Export Promotion Bureau, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan. 3. Upon examining the consignment, Custom authorities took a view that the goods were 'Ajwain seeds' and not Lovage. The import of Ajwain seeds required, specific licence and there was no exemption from licensing in regard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C (HS) Classification categorically classifies Ajwain seeds under CTH 0910.09 and Lovage under 1211.90, the same would merit classification in the above headings. Since the comparison of samples of identical goods indicated it to be Ajwain seeds. I agree with the order of the lower authority to classify the same under CTH 0910.09. Regarding value, it is seen that the department has compared the impugned goods with contemporaneous imports which shows the unit price as US$ 545 PMT. While the Appellant is contesting the quality of the contemporaneous import, he has not produced any evidence to prove that the impugned goods were of inferior quality and hence, of lower value. I, therefore, agree with the enhancement of value to US$ 545 PMT. Also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of J.K. Imports v. CC, Mumbai - [2004 (173) E.L.T. 372 (1) = 2004 (116) ECR 476 (Tri. - Delhi)] wherein the Tribunal accepted assessment at the transaction value upon noting that Lovage consignments were being cleared at the same time at transaction values which were in the range 400-415 US $ PMT. He would also point out that in the case of J.K. Imports the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that Lovage and Ajwain are the same. 9. The ld. SDR would point out that the original authority had com pared the samples from four importers including that of the appellant. They were of M/s. J.K. Imports (subject of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal). Maxo Lab Pvt. Ltd., J.K. & Co. and the appellant. The ld. SDR would emphasize that it was the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d shows that classification of the consignments was changed based on a market enquiry. However, that market enquiry is not avail able with the Custom authorities for being produced despite repeated adjournments. The appellant would point out that copy of the market enquiry was not supplied to them also. Therefore, they are also not in a position to produce the same. The original authority's order speaks of samples being seen but those samples are not available samples being seen but those samples are not available now. Therefore, this appeal has to be decided without regard to the market enquiry report and sample. 14. We have already noted in our order in the case of J.K. Imports that it was the categorical finding of the Commissioner (App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order is rightly passed. In respect of valuation the contention is that the adjudicating authority relied the contemporaneous import of the same goods, which are of the higher value. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order gave a categorial finding that Lovage and Ajwain are the same. This finding is not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, now the Revenue can not argue that Lovage and Ajwain are two different commodities. We find that Lovage is not restricted item in case it is imported from SAARC countries. In the present case the appellant produced the necessary certificate showing the country of origin as Pakistan. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of the appellant that the goods in question are not restric....