2018 (1) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the order which needs to be rectified: I. It was pleaded that quotations were received by Fax machine installed in the office of mother in law of Mr. J.P. Calaco. The Ld. Commissioner has not relied on this material and the same was not relied in the show-cause notice. Cross examination was denied to the importer but was conducted by the adjudicator behind the applicant. The applicant relied upon various judgments in their written submission dt. 22/08/2016. No finding on the said submissions was offered. II. Apex Court judgment in Mytri Enterprises case is not applicable as the facts are different. III. The hearing was completed on 18/08/2016 and order was reserved. Applicant filed written submission on completion of the heari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll the issues raised in the application have been adequately addressed by this Tribunal. Hence no error can be found in the order of this Tribunal, consequently no question of rectification, hence the application may be dismissed. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We deal each point of the proposed correction as under: I. As regard the submission of the appellant that the Commissioner has not relied on the quotation received by Fax machine installed in the office of mother in law of Mr. J.P. Calaco, we find that the issue of valuation was not decided on the basis of quotation only but on the basis of comparable price retrieved from official website of Brand owner M/s Pioneer Corporation, Japan a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6, on the issue of penalty under Section 114A was dismissed by Single Member Bench both appeals should have heard together. We do not find any substance in this submission for the reason that both the said appeals were heard separately and decided separately. Since the appeal No.C/702/06 was not before this Bench, reference of the same is irrelevant particularly for the issue on rectification of mistake. V. As regard the price of USD 62.10 as against Singapore wholesale price USD 53.64, we find that the Adjudicating Authority taking reasonable means applied value of USD 62.10 when there is established undervaluation. It is not necessary that a particular wholesale price available can only be taken but the Adjudicating Authority as ....