2004 (9) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n brought out in the note prepared by Member (Judicial) has been stated by Member (Technical). He has ultimately suggested that the matter has to be re-heard. The note prepared by Member (Judicial) in the form of questions and the Member (Technical)'s disagreement of these questions raised is extracted herein below :- Since there has been difference of opinion between the two Members of this bench who heard the matter, the Registry is directed to place this file before the Hon'ble President to refer it to a third member to resolve the issue. 2. The following point is required to be considered by the Third member. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, prices mentioned in the LME Bulletin can be taken as basis in enhan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confiscation, redemption fine and penalty, which are justified irrespective of the view taken on the valuation of the consignments. This difference between the two orders has not been brought out in the note recorded by the Member (Judicial) for reference to the 3rd Member. 5. Even in respect of valuation of the two consignments, it is not merely a question as to whether the Metal Bulletin price can form the basis of valuation. The main question to be decided is whether in the circumstances of the case, when the invoices in question are suspect in regard to the weight and value recorded thereon, whether the Transaction Value Method of Valuation can at all be applied specially in the light of the decision of the three Judges Bench of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y) Member (T) 2. I have heard ld. JCDR and ld. Counsel in the matter. Both sides have filed written submissions. 3. It is the submission of ld. JCDR that Member (Judicial)'s order is not in terms of law and the citations referred to. She supports the opinion expressed by Member (Technical) while disagreeing with the questions raised by Member (Judicial) and submits that Member (Judicial) ought to have addressed himself to the questions arising in the appeal and should have properly answered the same. She also submits that the question of mis-declaration leading to confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty was not considered by Member (Judicial) and therefore the suggestion of Member (Technical) for being re-heard is the right....