2008 (8) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Anil Balani, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by Revenue. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents M/s. Guide Optical Co. imported optical frames and declared value as per import invoice @ US $ 0.60 per frame totally valued at US $ 3240 which appeared to be undervalued. Statement of Shri Naresh R. Bafna, partner of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rein adjudicating authority rejected the transaction value and enhanced the value to Rs. 178.95 per frame, confiscated the frames with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Guide Optical. On appeal the order was set aside with consequential relief. 3. Revenue in its appeal has contended that Commissioner (Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at Revenue has not gone by the statement of Shri Naresh Bafna and has calculated its own value based on some market enquiry, copy of which was not given to the respondent and not even to the Commissioner (Appeals). It is not clear as to how value has been worked out @ Rs. 178.95 as no calculation details are given. They have no means to verify, whether the market enquiry was done in respect of the....