2008 (4) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Veeraiyan Member (T)] - This is an appeal by the Departmental against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.1.2005. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The respondent imported three consignments of Polyester fabrics in October 2004 and two consignments of PU Leather Cloth in November 2004.  The goods were examined as per the examination order in the presence of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing order at any stage and did not protest the raising of the assessable value.  The Commissioner has not called for the records from the Department and did not seek any clarification and decided the appeal based on the submissions of the respondent. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that they never accepted to the enhancement of the value. The enhancement has been done suo-moto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....940 dated 01.11.2004.  We find this noting is misleading.  For the consignment relating to the bill of entry dated 1.11.2004 the value was enhanced only by the Department.  It is not a case of the respondent importing at the assessed value of .448 US$.  Learned DR produced NIDB data relating to the year 2005 and claimed that imports had taken place at prices substantially highe....