9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide order dated 18-5-2009 by rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellant, M/s. Strapex India Ltd. on the ground that the supplier, M/s. Strapex GmbH Switzerland and Interstate, Netherland are related to the appellant and the relationship has influenced the price when compared with the sales effected to unrelated buyers in India. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has entered into an International Distributorship agreement with M/s. Strapex GmbH Switzerland for distributing the latter's product in India on stock and sales basis. As per the agreement, the appellant has undertook promotion of the sale of the products of the foreign supplier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity levels adjustments in accordance with the provisions of rule 10 and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not related." The said rule itself provides that in a sale between the related parties while making the comparison, due account should be taken of demonstrated difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of rule 10 and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not related have to be noted and adjusted. The appellant has given details of sales effected to Indian buyers in eight transactions where the appellant had received overriding commission by way of credit notes. If this overriding commission is excluded, the net realizatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the impugned order be set aside and the appeal allowed. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 3.1 He submits that the difference in valuations between those transactions in which the goods have been supplied directly to unrelated buyers and the transactions undertaken by the appellant is quite huge and is almost 40% of the value and therefore, rejection of transaction value is merited and no fault can be found in the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 4.1 We have also perused the distribution agreement entered into by the appellant with the foreign supplier. The said agreement casts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re or less similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the cases cited supra. In the Premnath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. case, it was held that acting as indenting agent and earning commission from foreign suppliers for their sales to third parties are entitled to a lower price for supply and merely because a lower price is charged, it cannot be held that the transaction value can be rejected unless there is evidence of additional consideration of flow back to the foreign supplier. The same ratio was followed in the case of Future Techno Designs (P) Ltd. and Indo Ashahi Glass Co. Ltd. wherein also it was held that even though the importer is subsidiary of the foreign company, he cannot be said to be interested in business of fore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
