2024 (1) TMI 533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntry appellant declared the value as USD 1900 and the goods were released as declared by the Appellant. Thereafter on post clearance audit, it is alleged that the same goods were cleared through Cochin Port by another importer manufactured by the very same supplier for a value of USD 2400 PMT. Based on the said objection, demand notice was made on the Appellant for loading the value to 2400 PMT and Appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,56,198/- towards the differential duty with interest. Though Appellant submitted detailed reply, the Adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of duty and aggrieved by the said order, appeal was filed before the Appellate authority who confirmed short levy of Rs. 5,56,19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant relied following decisions: I. Eicher Tractors Ltd Vs CC Mumbai (2000 (122) E.L.T 321 (SC) II. Basant Industries Vs Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1996 (81) E.L.T 195 (S.C) III. Mirah Exports Pvt Ltd Vs Collector of Customs (1998 (98) E.L.T 3 (S.C) IV. Finolex Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Pune (2004 (174) E.L.T 341 (Tri.Del) V. Devika Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (2004 (167) E.L.T 75 (Tri. Mumbai) VI. Mark Auto Industries Ltd Vs CC, New Delhi (2003 (162) E.L.T 261 (Tri. Del) VII. Andhra Sugars Ltd Vs CC Vishakhapatnam (2006 (193) E.L.T 68 (Tri. Bang) VIII. Varsha Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India (2009 (235) E.L.T 193 (SC) IX. Sounds N Images Vs Colle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MT CIF from Korea and Japan. We, therefore, uphold the enhancement of the unit price of the imported material to US $ 2200/- PMT CIF as ordered by the Adjudicating Authority, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 4. Heard both sides. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is importing similar goods through various ports across India and produced Bills of Entry related to import of very same goods through Ahmedabad and Kolkata. Though the adjudicating authority as considered the Bill of Entry submitted before the Adjudicating Authority, there is no finding in the impugned order regarding the import made by appellant through other port. As held by Apex court in the matter of Eicher Tractors Ltd (Supra), as per the Customs v....