9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Pvt. Ltd./ importer/ the appellants from M/s Harley Davidson Motor Company, USA and M/s Harley Davidson Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., Singapore/ foreign supplier. After the said Order had completed its three years cycle, the subsequent periodical review thereof became due which was done vide Order No. 6112 dated 24.02.2015 by Deputy Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi holding that the importer and foreign supplier are related persons and that the invoice value of the goods imported by the importer from foreign suppliers is not influenced by their relationship. Resultantly, the said Order, confirmed the earlier Order of 09.03.2011 as renewed. However, Commissioner Customs General vide his review order No. 25/2015 had directed for filing Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient in deciding the value of the imported goods under Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. It has been specifically mentioned in the impugned order that other than the declaration made by the importer, the original Adjudicating Authority has not compared any other data due to which the same is a non speaking order. It is also impressed upon that the Adjudicating Authority was aware of the relationship between the importer as well as the foreign supplier. Hence, an elaborate discussion was required. The same, since was missing, the order under challenge is justified, Appeal accordingly is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that prior adjudicating the controversy, the law ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) and Rule 3(3) above evidences that the transaction value of related party imports shall be accepted through either of the following methods: (i) An examination of the circumstances of the sale indicates that the relationship between the parties did not influence the price of the imported goods; OR (ii) The importer demonstrates that the declared value of the goods closely approximates the transaction value of identical or similar goods in sales between unrelated parties, or the deductive value for identical or similar goods, or the computed value for identical or similar goods. 5.6 As discussed above in our first ground of appeal, Rule 3(1), Rule 3(2) and Rule 3(3) are intrinsically linked and provide for a mechanism to determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, none of these Rules require the adjudicating officer to inquire into NIDB data as was directed vide the order under review dated 18.05.2015 and has been accepted vide order under challenge. The law has been settled that onus to prove that the declared price did not reflect the true transaction value is always on the Department and that Department is bound to accept the transaction value entered between the two parties, unless and until, Department has a cogent evidence that identical or similar goods were imported by other importers at higher price as it was held by Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Prodelin India Limited 2006 (202) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.). In another case titled Commissioner of Central Excise, Roh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
