2013 (6) TMI 535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e extra discount received by the appellant is not justifiable and the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone differently on other grounds and held that value has to be arrived as per Rule 7/8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 which is not justified as it is neither the issue nor prayed before him. In view of these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue as agitated by the Revenue before him. It is pertinent to mention here that the matter has to be disposed of within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard. All issues are kept open. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported goods from t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... India, Peru and Portugal they offer a discount of 20% from their price list. As per the discount policy of the foreign supplier, the extra discount of 10% is offered to these four countries for the reason that market has to be developed in these countries and there is an additional risk of introducing new technology. Therefore to attract buyers in this market an extra discount is offered. He also submitted that there is nothing wrong in offering extra discount to new areas where the products are being marketed for the first time and relationship between the supplier and the buyer has not influenced on these discounts. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation. It does not preclude discounts on the listed price. When a discount is permissible commercially, and there is nothing to show that the same would not have been offered to anyone else wishing to buy the old stock, there is no reason why the declared value in question was not accepted under Rule 4(1). In the instant case, Revenue has not produced any extra evidence which can be proved that being a related person the price is influenced and more discount has been given to the appellants as a related person. As it is a trade practice, being new market in India, the appellants are given more discount. It does not mean that the transaction value is tainted price. Therefore, we hold that in this case, the transaction value produced by the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X