9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(1)(c) of CVR'88 and the pending Provisional Assessment for the period April 99 to December 2000 be finalised by adding the above said Royalty and Know How & Basic Engineering Fee. He also ordered that the declared prices of USD 2.25/kg for "Nylon 66T 728" imported by M/s. Dupont Fibres Ltd. from M/s. Dupont Singapore Pvt. Ltd., shall be loaded to unit Price of USD 5.80/Kg as per Rule 6 of CVR '88 but if the Appraising Groups notices any previous recorded prices higher than USD 5.80/Kg then the same may be considered under appropriate rules of CVR'88. 2. In the appeal, the appellant submits that they are the manufacturers of Tyre Cord Fabric from Nylon 66 Yarn imported from Du Pont Singapore and Du Pont USA and they entered into a j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited. The appellant contends that in March 1999, the jurisdictional Customs Authorities initiated investigation to ascertain whether the prices charged for Nylon 66 Yarn by Du Pont Singapore and Du Pont USA were influenced by the relationship between the appellants and the suppliers and the appellants submitted all the relevant documents. Appellants contend that without taking their submissions on record, the lower authority passed the above impugned order. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant submits that the lower authority has relied upon the imports of Nylon 66 Yarn of 210 D made by M/s. Magamayee Trading Enterprise which is not similar to the yarn imported by them but they were not given the copies of the invoices of the imports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction value as per Rule 9(1) (C) of the Valuation Rules. 6. Prima facie, the appellant states that as the appellant has determined not to pursue the manufacture of nylon 6.6 yarn, the Technology and Financial Collaboration Agreement was terminated by both sides and communicated to all the concerned agencies and that other than the first instalment of technical fee of US $ 16,67,000 released in December, 1995, the balance licence and engineering fees and royalty have not been paid and they are also not payable in view of the termination. Therefore, the issue is only with regard to US $16,67,000 which has been paid towards technical fee. 7. This payment, as per the Agreement was towards engineering information for building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported by M/s. SRF at the same price which would indicate that the price at which the goods were being imported were, in fact, the normal transaction values. Therefore, determination of value under Rule 6 is not correct. 10. Further, the lower authority has directed that the price of the impugned goods shall be loadable even after the period from 1-1-2000, viz., even after the importer and the overseas supplier have become unrelated on account of the termination of the agreement which is clearly not justified. Acceptability or otherwise of the invoice value furnished has to be examined separately under the provisions of Sec. 14 and the Valuation Rules. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered that :- (a) The royalty and technical know ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
