ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this case is valuation of samples of fabrics cleared by the appellant. The appellant is a manufacturer of cotton fabrics and manmade fabrics amongst other goods falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55. He draws trade samples from good fabrics and supplies them to his dealers free of cost for trade promotion. Duty on the trade samples has been worked out by the appellant on the basis of the value of fents and rags which he clears on payment of duty. The department, however, feels that the value should be proportionate to the value of good fabrics cleared by the appellant on payment of duty. Thus, the issue revolves round as to what is comparable price to be adopted for the trade samples. It is an admitted fact that the trade samples are drawn from fabrics which are sold as first grade fabrics. The width of trade samples is 50 cm and the length is generally 50 cm or above. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after discussing the order-in-original, has observed that the appellant draws the samples from good quality fabrics and that the samples drawn are far in excess of 50 cm in length and sometimes they are of a length of more than one metre.
2. None was present from the appellant’s side. However, a letter requesting for adjournment has been sent. We have considered this letter carefully and find no reason to adjourn the matter. The appeal relates to year 1999 and the amount involved is Rs.9,556/-. We, therefore, proceed to decide the case on the submissions made by the JDR and on perusal of records.
3. The appellant’s contention that the value of the trade samples should be based on the value of fents and rags is clearly untenable. It is a fact that these trade samples have been drawn from good quality fabrics. The proportionate value of the good fabrics should be adopted for the purpose of determining the value of the trade samples whether they are sold or not. The lower authorities have discussed at length as to what a fent is and what a rag is. The appellant’s product does not come anywhere near such goods. We, therefore, hold that the price of good fabrics should be taken and the value should be worked out proportionately for the trade samples in question. The lower authorities have done exactly that. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
(Operative part pronounced in court)