2017 (8) TMI 1271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....99, for the clearance off 28 MTs and 27.5 MTs of ginger of Chinese origin. Out of these two imports, goods in respect of B/E 215673 had already been cleared and those in respect of B/E 215674 had been assessed and duty paid on 04.05.1999. A Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.1999 was issued to the appellant, proposing enhancement of unit price of goods covered under both the B/Es to US$ 1,200 /MT C&F as against US$ 550/MT C&F, demand of short collected duty amounting to Rs. 3,00,820/- along with interest, confiscation of the imported goods and imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order dated 21.07.99 confirmed the proposal of enhancement of value to USD 1,200 /MT C&F, imposed redempti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....interest thereon and imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,00,820/- under Section 114A and Rs. 2,80,000 under Section 112 (a), apart from ordering redemption fine of Rs. 5,60,000 in lieu of confiscation of goods imported vide two B/Es. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 18.07.06, held that the goods that were already cleared prior to department detecting the case would not be liable for confiscation, however, upheld the remaining portion of the order of the original authority. 2. On 27/07/2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Ld. Advocate Shri A.K. Jayaraj, reiterated the grounds of appeal and also made oral submissions ,which can be summarized as under:- a) Although in the first round....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e resorted only when the value is rejected for valid reasons. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the department Ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan, AC supported the adjudication. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has made a detailed analysis of various issued at hand and that the impugned order therefore does not call for any interference. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the records. 5.1 The issue that comes up for appellate decision concerns the legality and correctness of the enhancement of import value made by the lower authorities in respect of imports of dry ginger of Chinese origin made by the appellant. 5.2 From the facts on hand, which have been capsuled by the lower appellate authority in page-22 of the impug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disregard the transaction value. 5.4 Viewed in this context, the DRI alert prices, or the appellant's own statement or public ledger information or email retrieved in respect of another importer or for that matter, price trend analysis made by a website of Samex Agency, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as valid basis for enhancement of the transaction value. On the other hand, we find merit in the appellants contention that in the case of contemporaneous import of Hira Traders, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order C3/553D/2003-SEA dated 31.05.04 had adopted the value of US$ 800 /MT in respect of identical goods. We find that the dry black ginger of Chinese origin was imported by the appellant herein vide B/E No. 21....