Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (3) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry of Armstrong World Industries Inc. Lanchester (USA), of which the present respondent was also a subsidiary. The prices declared in the relevant bills of entry by the respondent were obtained by discounting the prices mentioned in the supplier s price lists to the extent of 25-30%. The respondent was treated as related to the Chinese supplier and accordingly the valuation of the goods imported by the respondent was referred to the GATT Valuation Cell (GVC) of the Customs House. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (GVC) by an order dt. 30.9.2003 rejected the importer s claim of discount and ordered that the transaction value be determined by the assessing authority concerned after disallowing discount on the declared invoice value. The orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndents have filed an analysis of imports of Mineral Fibre Sheets from 1st July 2003 to August 2003 before the Commissioner (Appeals) indicating the bill of entry number and the price at which the same goods were cleared etc. by other importers and claimed that their prices are well above, the prices at which other importers cleared the same goods. It was their contention before the Commissioner (Appeals) that their relationship with the supplier has not influenced the price of goods under import. The Commissioner should not have dealt with the evidence produced before him for the first time. The proper course would have been to direct the appellants before him to file evidence before the original authority by remanding the matter. It is nec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... leared by other importers if any. They were also required to produce the relevant bills of entry covering imports of identical/similar goods by others. However, no document whatsoever was submitted by the assessee. The original authority, on its own, made an endeavour to retrieve data from NIDB relating to import of identical/similar goods by third parties, but no such import was found. In the circumstances, the adjudicating authority reached the same conclusions as those which were arrived at by his predecessor-in office in order dated 30.9.2003. Aggrieved, again, the assessee approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority permitted abatement of discount from the declared invoice value after holding the view that such disco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erstood to be de novo adjudication. In such proceedings, according to learned counsel, the entire record of the case should have been examined and a final view taken on the valuation issue. It is submitted that, though several materials such as copy of price list, details of commission earned by the importer, copy of the agreement for supply of goods to India, reply to questionnaire, zerox copies of a few bills of entry and invoices, filed by the respondent, were already available on record, the adjudicating authority did not examine the same and chose to reiterate the conclusions of his predecessor-in- office without application of mind. The learned counsel further points out that the original authority had accepted the declared price of i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he substantive issue of valuation was clearly stated therein. The grievance of the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have admitted fresh evidence but should have left it to the lower authority was also mentioned in the remand order. This bench addressed this grievance by ensuring that the case is taken up by the original authority for de novo adjudication and that the additional evidence which was promised to be filed by the assessee is also duly considered. The remand order did not foreclose examination of the evidence already on record. The adjudicating authority, however, reiterated its original conclusions after noting that no fresh evidentiary material had been brought on record by the party. It did not examine the evi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates