9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, the company is an approved vender for DRDO and BEL, having defence applications. They import the required raw materials such as steel angles, sheets and other materials from its parent Paschal Germany. Since both the supplier and importer are related in terms of relationship defined under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the import transactions were subjected to investigation by the SVB, Chennai Customs. It was found that Paschal Germany had exported goods to Paschal India by extending 25% discount. There was another discount of 3% towards prompt payment. As per Board's circular, a case was registered in the SVB unit and circular dated 8.7.2010 was issued for provisional duty assessment with 1% Extra Duty Deposit and the Indian company wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hal India was not incorporated in India. Further the fact that discounts are available for all its subsidiaries across the world was not accepted by SVB as supplies to Paschal Bahrain consisted of different part nos. But on closer look, it was found that there are cases where same part nos. are available in the invoices of Paschal India and Paschal Bahrain with a similar price as below: S. No. Paschal India Inv 208/10051426 (P 73) Paschal Bahrain Inv 208 / 10041432 (P 46) 1. Lower Bar 75x6x437 E 3.037 per pce Lower bar 75x6x437 E 3.037 per pce 2. Junction Plate 130x5x25, E 0.375 per pce Junction Plate 130x5x25, E 0.375 per pce 3. Vertical Bar 175 cm 60x6x1237 E. 7.050/- per Pce Vertical Bar 175 cm 60x6x1237 E. 7.050/- per Pce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2022 (144) ELT 704 (Tri. Chen.) b. Collector of Customs Vs. Blue Star Enterprises - 1996 (81) ELT 287 c. Commissioner of Customs Vs. South India Television - 2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC) d. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Prodelin Indian Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (202) ELT 13 (SC) 3.3 The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) has take us through the OIO and the impugned order and reiterated the same. He requested that the appeal may be rejected. 4. We have gone through the appeals carefully and have heard the rival parties. We find that Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR) states that the transaction value shall be accepted even where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e suppliers within the time. The cost construction statement duly certified by the CA shows that on average the profit margin was around 16%. None of this was refuted through facts. The OIO at para 16 also mentions that the learned Adjudicating Authority did not find any cash flow back towards Royalty/ Technical Know-How fees/ Licence fee in respect of the imported goods. 4.3 The Appellant has drawn reference to the Apex Courts judgment in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs Prodelin India Pvt Ltd [2006 (202) ELT 13 (SC)] to state that the onus to prove that the declared price did not reflect the true transaction value is on the department. 4.4 We find that the department at the first instance has not shown any concrete reason to discar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
