Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2001 (9) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent. He took into consideration one quotation dated 16th April, 1993 from a Singapore company which was of about US $ 75 per piece and one other valuation at US $ 38 per piece. The Collector also ascertained from M/s. Solidair India Ltd., another company which had imported the same item but of Taiwan-make and found out that the price there was Rs. 1220-1250 per piece. The Collector then came to the conclusion that the correct value which should be determined, considering the quantity imported, would be US $ 33.60 per piece FOB and to this was added insurance and freight. An order of confiscation was passed but the respondent was permitted to pay redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and redeem the goods. In addition thereto, penalty of Rs. 50....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per cent on the price list and arrived at a figure of US $ 33.6 per piece FOB. The Commissioner of Customs in a sense upheld and followed the earlier order of the Collector except that the amount of redemption fine and penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. 6.In appeal, the Tribunal in the impugned order has observed that the order of the Commissioner is incorrect, inasmuch as on remand it was required to verify and accept the bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993 which had been relied upon by the respondent. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the Commissioner has not made any attempt to place evidence of contemporaneous import of similar goods and in flagrant violation of....