ARIHANT ELECTRONICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 27/2005 dated 6.1.2006. The appellants had imported a consignment of Potentiometers Electronic Component from China. The allegation against the appellant is that they have under -invoiced the same in the Bill of Entry No. 3095 dated 6.4.2004 by which they have made clearances of 3,49,000 pieces of the said goods. The Department proceeded to enhance the value in terms of the prices available at Bangalore in respect of the same item. Further, the appellant contested that only comparable price from the same origin and from the same time and place should be taken for enhancing the value as laid down under Section 14 of the Customs Act, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court and the Tribunal in large number of cases. The learned Counsel submits that prevailing retail prices at Bangalore cannot be taken without ascertaining the place of origin, time and place. Therefore, the very method of reassessing has been challenged, as it is not as per the terms of Section 14 of Customs Act and large number of judgments. The learned Counsel particularly pointed out to the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai and filed the following list of citations and submits that the enhancement of value is required to be set aside and the declared value is required to be accepted.

(2.) THE learned JCDR submits that the importer admitted the liability and therefore, there is no question of Revenue producing any evidence in the matter.

(3.) WE have carefully considered, the submissions and find that the evidence produced by the Revenue pertaining to retail price of said item in Bangalore cannot be considered to support the allegation of undervaluation, as held in large number of cases noted by the learned Counsel in the written submission in Para 11 to 14, which are reproduced herein below.