2004 (2) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules as US $ 1332 PMT uniformly. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting the value as enhanced by the lower authority, held that reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on stray instances of imports at higher prices and reject the transaction value is not correct. The reliance on LME prices, according to him, is misplaced. He held that the value declared by the importers is a transaction value as per Section 14(1) and Rule 4 of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules respectively and since the department has not alleged, that the mischief of Clause (a) to (d) of Rule 4(2) of the said rules at the relevant time was attracted, transaction value ought to have been accepted; that the transactions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on by the original authority on the ground that the goods are dissimilar. The Revenue's further plea is that the LME price and contemporaneous prices of brass scrap is comparable with the imported goods under dispute. The Revenue relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Deccan Polypack Ltd. 1998 (100) E.L.T. 398. The Revenue's plea is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the evidence of contemporaneous prices and LME prices basing on which the original authority has enhanced the declared value to US $ 1322 PMT CIF. 4. When the case was called, neither the departmental representative nor the respondents were present. Perused the records. 5. The dispute is regarding valuation of imported goods. The Commission....