TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding that the goods (white poppy seeds), covered by bills of entry No. 662784 dated 8-12-2000 and 663451 dated 18-12-2000 were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the value of consignment was under-declared at US $ 850 MT and that the difference in duty on the refixed value at US $ 1129 CIF PMT which came to Rs. 5,40,623/- was payable. A redemption fine of Rs. 5,40,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation of goods. By the same order, the duty difference in respect of similar goods covered by bills of entry No. 664212 dated 27-12-2000, 664947 dated 3-1-2001, 665311 dated 8-1-2001 and 665314 dated 8-1-2000 was worked out on the basis of the refixed value at US $ 1129 CIF PMT at Rs. 8,55....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9-2-2001 alleging that the declared value of US $ 850 PMT (FOB) did not represent the correct transaction value because it was noticed that contemporary imports of white and yellow poppy seeds of Turkish origin were made at US $ 1050 (FBO) and US $ 880 (FOB), respectively. These imports were made by M/s. Saccha Soudha Pedhi of Pune. Taking into account the actual freight and insurance, the CIF value was worked out at US $ 1129 per MT. In the show cause notice, reference was made to the Spices Market Weekly published by the Spices Board of India which indicated that the spot FOB price of Turkish poppy seeds was US $ 0.56 per pound which worked out to US $ 1234 PMT. 5. The appellants contested the show cause notices by filing a detailed re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) wherein it was held that "transaction value" under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules was required to be accepted unless it was covered by any exceptions under Rule 4(2), held that in the light of the fact that Rule 10(A) of the Valuation Rules came into force from 19-2-1998, the ratio of the decision in Eicher Tractor Ltd. was not applicable to the present case. It was held that parameters regarding acceptance of transaction value and the basis for rejecting it with reference to the exceptions under Rule 4(2) appeared to have been considered in Eicher Tractor Ltd. which was decided on 14-11-2000, without considering the provisions of Rule 10(A) of the Valuation Rules. In our opinion, these remarks in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for export to other countries could not be taken into consideration, why the Commissioner himself should get affected by such information. 8. The Commissioner while considering the question of difference in the purity of the goods dismissed the same by simply observing that a percentage difference in purity of 0.4 in agriculture products was not capable of accounting for a price difference of 23.5%. This he has done without examining the price difference between poppy seeds of 99.5% purity and 99.9% purity which was even evident from the imports made by M/s. Saccha Soudha Pedhi that had imported poppy seeds of 99.9% purity at US $ 1050 PMT FOB and poppy seeds of 99.5% purity at US $ 945 PMT FOB. This aspect has been totally over looked b....