9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by 35 to 45% on the value in the List price. There is no evidence whatsoever forthcoming from the record that the relationship has influenced the price. Mere passing of discount by the supplier to the importer does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the discount has been passed on account of the relationship. The appellant have explained that the discount was also given to an independent dealer. The commission received by the appellant to the extent of 15% over the price at which Inteltek was importing the goods is also explained by them. This is a normal commercial practice. Unfortunately, neither the adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have followed the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements in rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant being a 100% subsidiary, imported electronic automation parts from their Principal. The appellant are related person in terms of the definition of related person under Rule 2(2) of the Valuation Rules. The appellants were receiving the imported goods at a discount of 35% to 45% on the List price of the Principal. The appellant submitted evidence to the effect that an independent dealer by the name of M/s Inteltek Automation Pvt. Ltd. was receiving the same goods from the same supplier at a discount of 30% to 35%. The difference of 5% to 10% in the discount received by the appellant and M/s Inteltek Automation Pvt. Ltd. was explained by the learned Counsel as being their commission on account of the after sales support service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice produced by the appellant of M/s Inteltek Automation Pvt. Ltd. actually pertains to the import made by their groups/companies/distributors. He further mentioned that the appellant used to get monthly fee of 5000 Euros for the services rendered on account of trade show and seminar participation and other tasks. 3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 4. At the outset, we may mention that both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not passed a well reasoned order. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant is related to the supplier (Principal) being a 100% subsidiary of the supplier. Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules provides for discarding the invoice price if there is evidence that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of law, particularly the Valuation Rules. Therefore, it would be most appropriate to remand this case back to the adjudicating authority for taking a proper legal view in the matter. 5. The adjudicating authority also ordered the appellant to pay the EDD of 1% on their imports after the expiry of his order in 2011. Board Circular No. 11/2011-Cus dated 23.2.2011 requires that if finalization is not completed within 4 months from the date of reply to the questionnaire provided by the Customs, the extra duty deposit should discontinued. That there is no reason to charge 1% EDD is also supported by the decision of Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of E I Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India - 2014-TIOL-1315-HC-MUM-CUS. 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
