TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant having cross holding of shares with the exporter of the goods - Held that: - both the appeals, filed by the appellant-importer as well as by the Revenue, are shorn of any facts - the adjudicating authority has clearly recorded that there was a licence agreement between the importer-appellant and the supplier in respect of textile machinery, designs and patents, electric sample cutting and pin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, by an order dated 30.4.2007, held that the goods imported by the appellant needs to be valued by loading the same by 153.50% for the purpose of assessment under Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 on the ground that the importer-appellant having cross holding of shares with the exporter of the goods. On an appeal, the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught to be imported and what was the declared value. The order-in-original only states that the importer was asked to submit reply to the questionnaire which was submitted and in that only one remark is that the product manufactured by the importer by using the imported goods is sold under a trade mark, design or patent owned or controlled by the supplier, but nothing is forthcoming from the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he supplier as what they had imported was a prototype and no further manufacturing activity had taken place. 5. In our considered view, both the appeals, filed by the appellant-importer as well as by the Revenue, are shorn of any facts. In view of this, we allow the appeal of the importer and reject the Revenue s appeal. The cross objection also stands disposed of. (Pronounced in Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
