105/2004 Customs NT dated 15.9.2004.
M s United Edible Oils Ltd., Bangladesh processed the said raw material in their factory in Bangladesh into Refined Soyabean Oil final product which was exported to the appellant.
The price declared, therefore, was the price at the point of exportation.
Before the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant presented the actual price of the above raw material plus processing charges plus transportation charges from the factory gate to the point of exportation.
31.66 per kg Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner directed the Department to companyplete the assessment and companyfiscate the goods under section 111 m of Customs Act, 1962.
31.66 per kg.
According to the Commissioner A , the only ground on which the Assistant Commissioner had invoked Rule 7A was that the appellant was given abnormal discounts.
This appeal was filed before the Commissioner A .
The goods imported were accompanied with Invoice dated 4.10.2003 and Invoice dated 30.10.2003.
By Order dated 26.12.2003 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs companyfirmed the demand raised by the Department fixing the assessable value at Rs.
The C F value of the Soyabean Oil final product showed the price to be Rs.
The appellant also obtained a certificate from the Superintendent of Customs which stated that the companysignments imported stood assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at Rs.
The appellant companytended before the Assistant Commissioner that the Department was number entitled to invoke Rule 7A and that the Department was number justified in invoking Rule 7A when the declared price tallied with the price of the Indian Refined Soyabean Oil see page E of the synopsis .
M 299/Kol /06 dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, Kolkata the Tribunal .
27.17 and Rs.
On the basis of said letter dated 15.12.2004 and Notification dated 15.9.2004 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs fixed the assessable value of the Refined Soyabean Oil at the above rate of Rs.
It is an appeal filed by the assessee.
27.17 and Rs.
Being aggrieved by Order dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 128A 3 of Customs Act, 1962.
In the said letter, the Board further stated that it was logical to value the raw material at prices higher than the Crude Soyabean Oil.
24.50 per kg.
Before the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant submitted the above documents.
The details were forwarded by the appellant to the Department vide letter dated 19.10.2003 along with companyy of the bills of entry.
The said goods were manufactured from imported Crude Soyabean Oil raw material .
The said raw material was imported by M s United Edible Oils Ltd., Bangladesh from a foreign companyntry under a valid invoice and bills of entry, companyies whereof were also submitted by the appellant herein to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
Appellant assessee purchased two companysignments of Refined Soyabean Oil from M s United Edible Oils Ltd., Bangladesh.
The appellant companytended before the Assistant Commissioner that the Assistant Commissioner was number entitled to invoke Rule 7A on the basis of the companyt break up, particularly when there was numberallegation that the price declared was tainted.
4753 of 2006 KAPADIA, J. Civil Appeal No.
The Assistant Commissioner came to the companyclusion that the Declared Price of the final product was less than the Tariff Value indicated in the letter issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 15.12.2004 under which the Board had stated that the Tariff Value for Crude Soyabean Oil stood at US 565 PMT vide Notification No.
The appellant companytended that M s United Edible Oils Ltd., Bangladesh was the manufacturer of Refined Soyabean Oil.
The Department, however, refused to accept the rate of Rs.
On 5.12.2003 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs gave a hearing to the appellant in the matter of finalization of the assessable value of the said two companysignments.
By Order dated 30.6.2004 the Commissioner came to the companyclusion that there was numberreason for the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to invoke Rule 7A, particularly when the Department had number alleged that the sale was number in the ordinary companyrse of trade.
31.96 respectively.
31.96 respectively.
with Civil Appeal No.
calculated at the prevailing rate of US .
4498/2006 This is an appeal under Section 130 E of the Customs Act, 1962 against judgment and order No.
The Department called upon the appellant to give the companyt break up of the imported goods.
