TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. Neither the show cause notice issuing authority nor the adjudicating authority have given reasons to hold that how the relation has indeed affected the price. The declared prices cannot be reviewed without any evidence to the effect that the relation between the appellant and the related buyer which has influenced the declared price or to the effect that there was a flow back of money between the appellant and related buyers. The proviso under Rule 3 (3)(b) provided that in applying the values used for comparison, due account shall be taken to demonstrate a difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared to other related units as compared to clearances of the same products made to other unrelated buyers. The appellant their sister concern units other related units were falling under the definition of related person as defined in sub rule 2 of Rule 2 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules, 2007. The price of the clearance made to sister concern units other related units appears to have influenced and the price was not the sole consideration in such transaction in as much as the difference in value was huge, hence as per Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 when there is no sale or the buyer and seller are related, or price is not the sole consideration or in any other case, then the manner of va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue shall be accepted whenever the importer demonstrate that the declared value of finished goods being valued, closely approximates to one of the following values ascertained at or or about the same time. While determining the differential duty, shelter of sub-rule 3(3)(b) has been taken but at the same time reservation given in the same rule was not considered by department. To calculate the differential duty department resorted to sub rule 4(1)(a) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported Goods) Rules 2007. But department failed to take note of all the provisions of Rule 4. 2.2 He also submits while calculating differential duty, transaction value of identical goods was compared but without giving due attention to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (TRI. BANG.) BUYING OVERSEAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI 2015(317)ELT 264 (TRI. MUMBAI) EXCIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(I), MUMBAI, 2015(317)ELT 264(TRI-MUMBAI) KOMET PRECISION TOLLS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMM. OF CUS (A), BANGALORE 2009(245)ELT 737 (TRI. BANG) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS C.EX. INDORE VS. HINGORA INDUSTRIES LTD. 2009(235)ELT 256 (TRI. DEL) EICHER TRACTOR VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI 2000(122)ELT 321(SC) CADILA HEALTCARE LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. VADODARA 2008(224)ELT 108(TRI. AHMD.) MARK AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. NEW DELHI 2003 (162)ELT 261 (TRI. DEL) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ROHTAK VS. SAI SALES CORPORATION 2012(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C.E, RAJKOT 2009(239)ELT 147 (TRI. AHMD.) TITAN ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., HYDERABAD 2009(236)ELT 705 (TRI. BANG,) 03. Shri Ghanasyam Soni, learned Joint Commissioner (AR) for the department reiterates the findings of impugned order. 04. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the records. We find that the Learned Commissioner has gone only on the basis that the buyer and seller are related in terms of Rule 2(2) of CVR, and proceeded to judge transactions in terms of valuation rule ibid. However, in terms of Rule 3 (3)(a) of CVR, where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
