TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded by the ld. Authority to arrive at the correct RSP, the reasoning has to be recorded - matter requires re-consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/640/2011-CU[DB] - C/A/53423/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate. Present for the Respondent: Mr. Yogesh Agarwal, D.R. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 20.09.2011 of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakabad. The appellants imported Digital Set Top Boxes and viewing card (STB) and filed bills of entry for clearance through Customs. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the value to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) (b) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they had declared printed MRP on the cartons of the imported goods. At the time of first assessment, the Customs Authorities adopted value for additional duty, which was arrived based on landed cost of the impugned goods. The appellants complied with the assessment and cleared the goods on payment of duty. However, the present proceedings were later initiated to demand differential duty by enhancing the value for additional duty based on their sale price to M/s. Dish T.V. He submitted that Section 4 A valuation is to be based on RSP and such RSP is to be based on the price at which the goods were sold to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counts that could not be allowed directly cannot be allowed by back door method. The quantity discount is a concept under Section 4 basically to arrive at the transaction price and such transaction price is not relevant to valuation under Section 4A. In other words, by supplying 125 boxes at the price applicable to 100 boxes, no inference can be drawn that 25 boxes are being given free. This is basically a linked sale which is sale of 125 boxes as a whole. The price is for 125 boxes only. To claim that 25 boxes are supplied free by artificial splitting part of the quantity is not correct understanding of the factual position. 3. The ld. Counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order as the same is contrarily to the provisions of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not engage in any of these transactions. They have made substantial profit by selling the set top boxes on a price, which is more than double of a printed MRP on the label. He also mentioned that the importer and Dish T.V. are all part of the same group company mainly involved in television entertainment business. As such, the business model evolved by the group companies cannot be the reasons for lower valuation of the imported items. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The basic facts of the case are not disputed. The appellants imported the impugned items with a declared MRP printed at ₹ 1,000/- per piece. They have sold the said items to M/s. Dish T.V. India Ltd. for ₹ 2,100/- per piece. We no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Section 4 A and the scope of RSP as defined in the said Section as well as the application of the provisions of the Standards of Weighs and Measures (PC) Rules, 1977 have not been done in detail. More specifically for application of the facts of the present case. While the rejection of RSP declared by the appellant is prima-facie supported by the evidences as recorded by the ld. Authority to arrive at the correct RSP, the reasoning has to be recorded. While the declared price is rejected, fixing the correct value is to be done with clear reasons and supporting evidence. In this, it is apparent that the appellants have to provide their side on the defence with supporting evidence as the MRP declared on the import package is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
