TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction value just because there are imports at a higher price by third parties. Also, as submitted by the appellants, the Appellate Authority did not discuss on the methodology to arrive at the import price having rejected the declared value. No directions are given to the lower authorities about the manner in which the valuation is to be arrived at and the rules thereunder to be applied. Such an order cannot be implemented. The grounds held to be acceptable to reject the declared prices are not strong - the OIA is not legally acceptable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 26471 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. 20351 /2020 - Dated:- 3-6-2020 - HON BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON BLE MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enced by the relationship with the supplier; profit earned by the appellant was common as per industry standard; there was no flow back of money and as a result no additions were found to be warranted. 3. The appellant submits that department filed an appeal on the grounds that the Adjudicating Authority (AA) compared the Import prices with inter-company price list but failed to examine if IC Price list is influenced by relationship; the fact that price list has not been followed in third party sale; influence cannot be based on the profit earned by the appellant Authenticity of the calculation of profit by the appellant; third parties imported same valves at 121 pounds/unit, whereas the appellants imported at 34.3 or 37 pounds/unit; t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s who are not related to the sellers in India, subject to the following deductions: (i) either the commission usually paid or agreed to be paid or the additions usually made for profits and general expenses in connection with sales in India of imported goods of some class or kind; (ii) the usual costs of transport and insurance and associated costs incurred within India; (iii) the customs duties and other taxes payable in India by reason of importation or sale of the goods. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant imports as per the list price to the intercompany import; there is no price list for the third parties; appellant has never received any discount from the price list; in case of third par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation to the ones imported by M/s Sergi. the appellant's margin is only 15% to 25%, which is reasonable; at times appellant incurs loss. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that taking into account the additional services undertaken by the appellant high discount is not arbitrary; hence. difference in itself is not aground to reject the transaction value. He submits that when there is no evidence of flow back or additional consideration by subsidiary to foreign supplier, transaction value could not be rejected. He submits that once the transaction value is rejected, then value has to be determined sequentially following Rules 4 to 8 of CVR, 2007; the appellate authority has failed to do; no rebuttal by appellate authority as to why t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s Sergi cannot be compared as the items are not comparable. The next objection taken by the appellant is that the OIA simply mentions the grounds of appeal and goes by the same alone and rejects the value declared under Rule 3(3)(a) of CVR, 2007 without laying down the principles as to how the valuation has to be arrived at. The appellants claimed that the valuation cannot be rejected as there is no allegation or proof of any flow back. They also submit that the principals offer a lower price to the appellants to compensate them for the services rendered in marketing the product and in obtaining orders for the same and profit percentage earned by the appellants cannot by itself a matter of suspicion. 9. On going through the OIA, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
