2001 (9) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent quality and quantum. The import is not contemporaneous in nature and therefore their value declared in the Bill of Entry is required to be accepted in terms of Section 14 of Customs Act. It is their contention that Dy. Commissioner's determining the assessable value in terms of Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules is not correct by overlooking the declared price given under Sec. 14 of the Customs Act. In support of above contention, ld. Consultant, Shri C. Chidananda Rao filed written submissions and citations which is reproduced herein below :- "It is respectfully submitted that M/s. Modern Marketing Agencies, Secunderabad, AP are traders in Ball Bearings. They imported from Singapore Ball Bearings of Nachi Brand from a Trader based in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6.         CCE, Calcutta v. Chem Crown (I) Ltd. - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 126 (T) Learned Commissioner observed that Manufacturer's invoice and discount pattern were not produced though the trader's offer prices and the invoice along with LC were produced. The learned Commissioner observed that the ratio of case laws cited by the Appellants was not applicable. He also observed that the Directorate of Valuation was a Nodal agency of Government of India and their recommendation have to be considered. We submit that the following points for consideration by the Hon'ble Bench. 1.         There was no allegation of under valuation, in this case. 2.  ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   Balakishan Das and Sons v. CCE, New Delhi - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 706 (T-Delhi) (Paras 3, 4, 6) 6.         CCE, Calcutta v. Chem Crown (I) Ltd. - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 126 (T) (Para 3) The Rulings of the Hon'ble Tribunal of South Zonal Bench in the following case laws : 1.         Hartex Elastomers Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Hyderabad - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 232 (T-Chennai) [Para 2 (b)] 2.         Virat Enterprises v. CCE, Chennai - 2001 (45) RLT 1033 (CEGAT - Chennai) (Paras 5, 6, 7) 3.         Aquastrides Bio-Tech Ltd. v. CC, Madras - 2001(98) ECR 69 (Tri.)." 2.He prays fo....