TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (J)]. - There is no representation for the appellants. The notice of hearing issued to them has been returned by the postman with the remark "left". This had happened on an earlier occasion also. We are not inclined to adjourn the matter any further, having regard to the fact that the appeal was filed as early as in 2001. Accordingly, we have examined the records and heard the learned JCDR. 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or delivery at the time and place of importation, and, therefore, the higher price declared for the second consignment could be adopted for the first as well for the purpose of assessment. In this connection, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1998 (98) E.L.T. 292 (S.C.)] was relied on. Hence the demand of differential duty on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 dollars and accordingly its price was paid at USD 850 PMT and nothing over and above that price was paid by the appellants. It is submitted that the department also has no case that any excess payment was made by the appellants. We have heard the learned JCDR who has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Rajkumar Knitting Mills (supra). We have considered the rival contentions. The case of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with reference to Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. We have not found any such reason stated in the impugned order. The original authority deemed USD 850 per MT to be the 'international minimum price' of the goods. In the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no mention of "international minimum price". 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the vie....