2007 (9) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss-objections as not pressed. 2. The Revenue has challenged the order dated 25th October, 2004 made by the Commissioner on the ground that, the value of Rs. 6.37 per piece of synchronous motor 49 TYJ type, was determined on a lower side. Though in the appeal memo, reference is made to the value of Rs. 12.77 per such motor imported' under the Bill of Entry dated 1-1-2004 for submitting that the said values should  have been adopted under Rule 6 being of the contemporaneous import, during  the arguments the learned authorized representative for the Department has contended that, the synchronous motor being of AC type, the transaction value of contemporaneous imports of such AC type motors, which was Rs 18.58 per unit, should have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in the memo of appeal and further, could the still higher value of Rs. 18.43, which was the minimum of the transactions tabulated in paragraph 7 of the show cause notice, should be allowed. 6. The provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 which require that the lowest of the value of identical goods, when there are more than one transactions should be used in determining the value of imported goods precludes acceptance of the value of Rs. 12.77 per unit, because from amongst those transactions which are clubbed together and referred to in paragraph 41 of the impugned order, the lowest value of synchronous motor 49 TYJ was Rs. 4.43 per unit. The learned Commissioner has, in para 49 of the impugned order, found that, the value declared by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t from the fact that, there has been a shift of stand from the grounds raised in the appeal memo under which value of Rs12.77 per unit was relied upon, the purported reliance during the submissions on the value of Rs. 18.53 which was sought to be justified on the ground that the motors imported under those transactions were AC. It is not disputed that the motors which were imported under the Bills of Entry tabulated in para 7 of the impugned order, were 4W motors and not 3W motors which were imported by the respondents. The learned Commissioner in para 47.2.3 of the impugned order has considered the characteristic of the synchronous 49 TYJ type motors and observed that the Department sought to compare the imported goods with the goods havin....