COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. UMA PARAMESWARI MILLS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals filed by the Revenue against the Order -in -Appeal dated 20 -7 -98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy.

(2.) THE respondents imported textile machine valued at Rs. 74,70,500/ -c.i.f from M/s. Murata Machinery Limited, Japan. It was held by the lower authority that there was a contemporaneous import of identical goods at higher value. The lower authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,31,700/ - by relying on the contemporaneous import of the said machinery. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has given the following findings :

(3.) THERE is no evidence from record that the price declared in the Bill of Entry is not genuine, particularly, when the appellants have produced the manufacturer's invoice and payment for the same was made through IDBI and Bank of India, Osaka. He has also relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Basant Industries , wherein it has been held that mere comparison of invoices received by importer with the invoice of imports of the same goods by other importer is not conclusive for determining the question of under valuation. He has also relied on a number of case laws and thus allowed the appeal of the respondents. Revenue is aggrieved over the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds : (i) The view of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the subject import and the import relied on by the lower authority are not contemporaneous is not correct. The date of the subject Bill of Entry is 5 -12 -1995 and the other imports Bill of Entry is dated 22 -11 -95. Definitely the two imports are contemporaneous.