TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted goods at a flat 8% of profit margin. The original authority has stated to rely on Arcelor Mittal. However, no details have been furnished - the reasons given by the Original Authority for not accepting the same are not satisfactory, as it was not established to the supplier company and had posted higher profit percentage, if any. Without providing any such data simple rejection of the declared profit margin is not acceptable. Moreover department has not adduced any evidence of any contemporaneous imports so as to indicate under valuation by Appellants. Loading of value by 1% in respect of imported capital goods i.e. slitting line, which is already included in the value declared is sufficient - Appeal allowed in part. - CUSTOM APPEA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers is only facilitating the export from Japan and are earning a margin of 1% on the same. As per the ratio of tribunal decision in Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs SVB Chennai 2015 (315) (ELT) 449 (Tri-Chennai) declared profit margin of 1% is acceptable, whereas the original authority has presumed that general profit percentage would be 8% as observed in Arcelor Mittal case. Learned Counsel submits that no details of import has been furnished; Arcelor Mittal is a renowned seller of steel and not capital goods and therefore it is inappropriate and arbitrary to adopt 8% of profit margin. The Learned Counsel further submits that he bonafide of the Appellants are established by the fact that department accepted the value of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the supplier of the Appellants was recorded to be 2.4%. We find that the reasons given by the Original Authority for not accepting the same are not satisfactory, as it was not established to the supplier company and had posted higher profit percentage, if any. Without providing any such data simple rejection of the declared profit margin is not acceptable. Moreover department has not adduced any evidence of any contemporaneous imports so as to indicate under valuation by Appellants. 4.2 We find that Tribunal in the case of Google India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that nominal profit element was required to be added and not 10% profit margin. Moreover department has not adduced any evidence of any contemporaneous imports so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant from the supplier i.e. Google Inc. is only for the purpose of development of software and export and also taking into consideration the principal supplier has not sold these goods to any third party but supplied to their affiliated companies only, loading of a nominal profit of 1% (one percent) on the declared value would be suffice. We find that the circumstances of both the cases are similar and the ratio is applicable. Therefore, we find that loading of value by 1% in respect of imported capital goods i.e. slitting line, which is already included in the value declared is sufficient. The impugned order requires to be modified to that extent. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
