TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty. Valuation - correct value or levy of customs duty - Held that: - the adjudicating authority after perusing the contract came to a conclusion that the total consideration, compensation paid by the appellant to overseas party to US $3,45,000 needs to be reduced to $35,000 which was not in respect of drawings and designs, was for inspection and installation. We find this impugned compensation is for research and concept design, preparation of plan elevation, and furnace specification and preparation of loose furnishing specification. In our considered view, all these three items as mentioned in the contract would fall under the category of drawings and designs, hence the adjudicating authority was correct in holding that these amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be considered as goods for levy of customs duty was in dispute and had to be decided by the apex court. In view of this, visiting the appellant with penalty is unwarranted. Accordingly, penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside. We uphold the demand of the customs duty and the interest thereon as indicated herein above and set aside the penalties - appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. C/483 to 488/06 - Order No.A/93723-93728/16/CB - Dated:- 4-11-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran Member (judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri J.H. Motwani, Advocate with Shri C. Nandgopal Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Comm.(AR) for the respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran All these four appeals are filed by the same appellant importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich duty liability is demanded. It is his submission in respect of the contract in C/483/06, the adjudicating authority has given an abatement of US $35000 towards the inspection of the work and installation as per the agreement but he has not considered the reduction of abatement in respect of payments for preparation of loose furnishing specification. It is his submission that in other appeals the adjudicating authority has granted an abatement of 10% from the contract vague which is incorrect; in the own case the apex court has held that adopting about 1/3 rd of the contract value will be a correct assessment of the transaction value of the imported goods i.e drawings and designs. He would submit that the appeals may be disposed of by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and concept design, preparation of plan elevation, and furnace specification and preparation of loose furnishing specification. In our considered view, all these three items as mentioned in the contract would fall under the category of drawings and designs, hence the adjudicating authority was correct in holding that these amounts are to be considered as transaction value for discharge of customs duty. In our view, there is no reason to Interfere with such a fair order. However, since in other orders, the adjudicating authority has given a further deduction of 10% from the transaction value, the same ratio needs to be applied in this case also. Accordingly, out of total US $3,10,000 further 10% discount is to be granted to appellant and tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
