2017 (10) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The facts of the case are that appellant imported Rechargeable Lamps PRL 228 valued at US$ 0.75 per piece vide Bill of Entry No.938320 dt. 03.01.2006. On examination, the goods were found to be "PREMIER" brand Rechargeable Portable Lamps, Model-PRL 228 (8WX2) Emergency Lamps and goods were found to be affixed with MRP stic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section112 (a) ibid. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 31.3.2008 upheld the order of original authority. Hence this appeal. 2. On 08.08.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri A.K. Jayaraj submits that the value declared by appellant is correct and true value; that statement taken....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laring less price, he would save customs duty and therefore had told the supplier to send invoices for US$ 0.75 per piece and that the correct price is US$ 1.30 per piece. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. No doubt, the appellant had based their assessable value on invoice price of US$ 0.75 per piece. However, no grounds have been evidenced for rejecting the said declar....