2018 (4) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion no.93/2004-Cus dated 10th September 2004. The price declared at the time of import was rejected on the ground that the values indicated in the London Metal Exchange Bulletin was much higher and was loaded by Rs. 8,52,98,173 with duty implication, though exempt, of RS.2,20,33,178. In appellate proceedings before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH these enhancements ordered by the original authority were set aside vide order-in-appeal no.113-122 (DC/Gr.VIID)/2009 (JNCH) dated 29th March 2009 leading to present appeals of Revenue. 2. None appeared for respondent. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the rejection of the declared value was in accordance with rule 12 of Customs Valuation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tracts were not registered with the appropriate wing in accordance with the schedule prescribed and that the under Customs Act, 1962 assessment is to be made for each consignment. The original authority, thereafter, rendered elaborate findings to hold that the justifications offered by importer lacked credibility. That rejection of the declared value should have been followed by a sequential application of the Rules for arriving at the assessable value. While there is a reference to certain bills of entry pertaining to contemporaneous imports, it would appear that these bills were not available in the adjudication proceedings. 4. It is in the above context that the impugned order must be seen. While it may be wanting in elaborate discussio....