P.K Das:— This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CSP(138)D-II/2005 dated 28.04.2005
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants imported Polyester Knitted fabric stock lot. They filed Bill of Entry declaring transaction value US $ 0.90 which was enhanced to US $ 1.40 The appellants filed appeal against the Bill of Entry before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants accepted the enhanced value. It has also been observed that after examining the record it was found that the value was enhanced on the basis of comparable import of identical goods.
3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the main contention of the learned advocate is that evidence of import of comparable goods was not furnished to the appellants. It was also contended by the learned advocate that due to urgency of the goods they accepted valuation for the purpose of clearance. In any event there is no dispute about the fact that the evidence of imported comparable goods was not supplied to the appellants. Hence, in our view the matter is required to be remanded to the original authority and to decide after affording opportunity of going through the evidence of import of comparable goods by the appellants. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority. At this stage learned Advocate submits that the present matter relates to the year 2004. He submits that the de novo proceedings should be conducted within a limited period. As such we direct the original authority to decide the matter within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order or as much as expeditiously.