ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The respondents herein imported goods described as Chinese raisins and filed hills of entry in April 1998 for clearance of goods for home consumption. The unit declared price of US$ 1495/- PMT was found to be low. The importer requested clearance with the loading of US$ 235/- PMT, i.e. US$ 1730/- PMT. and furnishing of provisional duty bond for differential duty on value of US$ 2300/- PMT as was being done in Mumbai Custom House. The market survey revealed that the similar goods were sold at a unit price of Rs.250/- per kg. in the domestic market and, taking into account 127% duty, margin of profit and 20% miscellaneous expenses, the import price worked out to Rs.90/- per kg. or US$ 2300/-PMT. On this basis, the adjudicating authority ordered enhancement of price to US$ 2300/- PMT. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and directed that the imported goods shall be assessed provisionally at a price of US$ 1730/- PMT with the provisional duty bond for provisional duty between US$ 2300/- and US$ 1730 PMT supported by appropriate security, pending further verification/investigation regarding the alleged under-invoicing. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. We have heard Shri S.V. Parelkar, learned DR, and perused the records as none appears for the respondents in spite of notice.
3. We find that the adjudicating authority has applied Rule 10-A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 which is rightly applicable, as contended before us by the department. It was open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to either uphold the loading of value or setting aside the same if he was of the view that the loading was not justifiable. He ought not to have directed provisional assessment of bill of entry which had already been assessed finally. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision on whether enhancement of value is sustainable or not, to the lower appellate authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the importers.
4. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.