2016 (3) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry 2006, out of which 13 Bills of Entry had been assessed provisionally as the appellant had not submitted original copy of the contract and duly attested certificate of origin as per Bangkok Agreement and invoice price appeared to be lower than the contemporaneous imported data. The other 4 Bills of Entry of the similar goods were imported by the appellant and the goods were cleared after assessment to loaded value which was accepted by the appellant. Show Cause Notices dated 26.10.2006 was issued for finalisation of the assessment on 13 Bills of Entry. The adjudicating authority finalised the assessment of 13 Bills of Entry at the same rate as in the case of finally assessed 4 Bills of Entry and directed the appellant to pay differential ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t imported goods. So, the department rightly taken the contemporaneous price as available in the earlier 4 Bills of Entry, which are accepted by the appellant. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority finalised the assessment in respect of 13 Bills of Entry at the same rate as in the case of finally assessed 4 Bills of Entry No. 763/ 20.01.2006, 789/ 07.02.2006, 824/ 23.02.2006 and 825/ 24.02.2006 and directed to pay the differential duty of Rs. 16,51,605/-. The present appeal relates to the finalisation of the assessment of 13 Bills of Entry during the period from January 2005 to February 2006. The assessing officer assessed the said 4 Bills of Entry after loading the value as pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rved that merely because in some case the Revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the Revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts. In the present case, the adjudicating authority after considering the evidences produced by the appellant had enhanced the value. It is not the case of the department that the appellant had not filed any appeal in respect of 4 Bills of Entry and therefore, they have enhanced the value. So, the said case law would not be applicable. In the case of Aryan Electronics vs. Commissioner of Customs, New D....