9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng parts and components for manufacture of such electric motors. 2. The said order dated 30-6-2000 was reviewed in the year 2003 vide order dated 30-6-2003 and the practice of not accepting the declared value was continued. A new practice of taking 1% of assessable value as Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) was started. In essence this is almost the same as the earlier practice, if a total duty incidence of 20% is assumed. However this order does not indicate the power exercised for ordering that such extra duty deposit should be made. It appears that the power exercised is the power under Section 18 of the Customs Act to order provisional assessment subject to conditions imposed. Later the order dated 7-11-2003 was taken up for further review. The appellants vide affidavit dated 23-11-2006 confirmed that there was no material change in respect of method of invoicing and pricing as was applicable when the order dated 7-11-2003 was issued. So the assessment practice as in order dated 26-2-2003 was ordered to be continued for a further period of three years as per order dated 30-1-2007. 3. When the three-year period as ordered in order dated 31-1-2007 came to an end on 30-1-2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them, in the case of CBUs there was a history of loading of value based on contemporaneous imports. In the case of parts contemporaneous imports was never found. This was the reason for requesting separate orders. The Counsel for appellants submits that the adjudicating authority did not heed to this request. 8. One basic contention of the appellants is that the adjudication order has been passed without giving a Show Cause Notice to them and without giving the evidence which the Revenue is relying on for coming to the conclusion that the value declared by them for imports were not true and correct. It is submitted that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. We have heard the A.R. for Revenue and also perused the impugned order. What we find is that the reasons given in the impugned orders of the lower authority are that there has been no change in the relationship between the supplier and the appellants since 2000. The other reasons for the order are given in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned order which are re-produced below : "7. Interestingly, I find that the appellant had requested the department to renew the said SVB order dated 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by their authorized representative vide e-mail dated 2-4-2010 is not authentic and does not contain the correct facts." 10. We have gone through paras 23, 24 and 25 of the adjudication order also which give the finding. No better reasons are recorded therein either. However those paragraphs are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 11. We have considered arguments on both sides. 12. Relationship between the supplier and importer per se is not a reason for rejecting the transaction value of imported goods as decided by the Apex Court in the case of C.C. v. Prodelin India (P) Ltd. - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.). In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "29. However, in the grounds of appeal, it is not the case of the Department that the value requires to be loaded because of the provisions of Rule 9(1)(c). But the Department is treating the respondent and M/s. PC USA as a related person and straightaway invoked Rule 4(3)(a) or 4(3)(b). The Department, in our view, cannot adopt such a course unless it is alleged that some evidence is brought on record that the prices at which M/s. PC USA had supplied the imported goods to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a decade. 14. We also note that the finalization of past assessments were done each time without quoting any specific rule of the Valuation Rules to justify the value adopted. Assessments are finalized apparently for the reason that the appellant did not contest the EDD in the past. So now that they are contesting the value suggested by Revenue, past assessments by itself cannot form a basis. 15. Further it is noticed that the order dated 30-6-2000 is to the effect that goods are to be valued under Rule 5 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988, then prevailing, that is based on price of identical goods imported by unrelated buyers in India. Subsequent orders dated 7-11-2003 and 31-1-2007 orders for continuation of the earlier practice. Para 13 of the impugned adjudication order dated 28-2-2011 gives information about continued supply to unrelated importers in India, even after 31-1-2007, at higher prices. But this is a disputed fact, though the appellant is not seeking to challenge assessments of goods imported before 31-1-2010. The impugned adjudication order, in para 16, takes note of the contention that direct supply by the foreign suppliers to unrelated buyers hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
