9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oading of the value done by the adjudicating authority by observing as under :- "I have carefully examined the records, grounds of appeal, oral and written submissions and judicial decisions on the subject. The impugned order is unsustainable on the facts and law. In the impugned order no reasons whatsoever have been recorded for ordering loading of invoice value by 15.26%. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 3-5-95 had given clear directions to determine the loading, if any, as per the observation contained in the appeal order. Since the earlier appeal was filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order of the lower authority to load invoice value by 2.9% on the ground that royalty payments was related to imports, the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees related to the imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the goods being valued, to the extent that such royalties and fees are not included in the price actually paid or payable. As per Rule 9(1)(C) the following conditions are to be satisfied before their addition to the value of the imported goods. 1. The royalty and license fees should be related to the imported goods in question. 2. The royalty and license fee are paid directly or indirectly as a condition of the sale of the goods being valued. As observed the royalty payments are neither directly or indirectly related to the imported goods and they are not conditions of sale of the imported goods. In the agreement th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be added to the goods imported. In this case the appellants have imported components from the collaborator as an independent commercial transaction and the department has not produced any evidence to doubt the truth or accuracy of the invoice value. No contemporary imports at higher rate have been indicated". 3. The ld. JDR would submit that the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous. It is his submission that the respondents i.e. importer had entered into two contracts, one for technical know-how and one for supply. It is his submission that the respondents is Pvt. Ltd. Company, in which 40% equity shares are held by the supplier company from abroad. It is his submission that as per the agreement, the royalty is being paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o import the goods from any source. Therefore the collaboration agreement and import of goods appear to be two independent commercial transactions and not related and connected with each other. No evidence has been brought out to controvert this position". 4. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order stating that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly gone in details and set aside the loading as has been ordered by the adjudicating authority. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the ld. Commissioner vide his earlier remand order has asked the lower adjudicating authority to justify the reasons for enhancement of the price and the quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
