Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs, Trichy -Appellant
Versus
Kiran Pondy Chem Ltd. -Respondent
Final Order No. 877/2010 Misc. Order No. M/378/2010 & C/CO/44/2004 Appeal No. C/386/2003, 877 of 2010, M/378 of 2010, C/CO/44 of 2004, C/386 of 2003
Decided On : 10-08-2010
C. Dhanasekaran,S. Venkatachalam
Per Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President : The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the enhancement of value of Titanium Dioxide B101 Anatase imported by the respondents herein in September 2001.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the value declared by the assessees was US$ 825 equal to Rs.39,454.38. Contemporaneous import of identical goods from China in November 2001 by M/s. Berger Paints was noticed and that value was adopted by the Department for rejecting the declared value. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, relied upon import of identical goods from the same supplier in January 2002 by M/s. Pure Trading Asia Ltd., Karaikal. We find that the import by M/s. Berger Paints can be treated as contemporaneous import as that import took place just about two months subsequent to the import by M/s. Kiran Pondy Chem Ltd. The fact that M/s. Berger Paints imported from China while the assessee imported from Hong Kong does not make a difference. The apex Court has held in a recent decision in the case of Radhey Shyam Ratanlal Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2009 (92) RLT 747 (SC)=2009 (238) ELT 14 (SC) that contemporaneous imports can be relied upon to enhance the value of imports.
3. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
4. The cross-objection filed by the importer is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the appeal of the Revenue and hence the same is dismissed.
