TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i S.M. Tata, Authorized Representative (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The appellant imported, at Delhi, on 27-6-2003, a consignment declared as "Article of imitation jewellery decoration type-2". The supplier was M/s. Daiwa Trading Co. Ltd., Japan and manufacturer was M/s. Brightex Corporation, Japan. The declared price was US $ 3.05 per kg. The good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The appellant's contention was rejected in adjudication as well as in first appeal. The main finding was that the manufacturer had marked both the packets as 'S-1' grade and therefore, both the products were identical. The marking was 0.01 S-1 10 Kgs." on both containers. The authorities held that once the marking of the manufacturer was the same on both the imported goods, they were undisputedly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grade. As to grade, what better evidence could be had than the marking on the original (first) packing by the manufacturer. In the present case, the manufacturer's marking is 'S-1', the same as on the goods imported by M/s. Khurana Exports. The Customs authorities were, therefore, right in treating the two consignments as of identical goods and demanding duty based on the price of the supply to M/....