2016 (7) TMI 1197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 736/2004-NCH dt. 8.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, wherein the Ld. Commissioner loaded the value at the rate of 2% on the CIF value to arrive at the assessable value of imported goods purchase by the appellant on High Seas Sale basis from their group company M/s. Dujodwala Products Ltd. 2. The fact of the case is that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommission to the invoice value. However, he instead of 4%, loaded 2% of the CIF value as per his opinion. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice therefore we proceed to decide the matter on the basis of available records and as per the grounds of appeal. The appellant submits that they had submitted details of sales to Mumbai Customs as per High Seas Sales Contract dt.12.08.20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per Public Notice is procedural and not mandatory. The appellant placed reliance on this Tribunal s decision in the case of XPRO India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2000 (118) ELT 776 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal held that the addition of 3% or 2% by the Customs authorities to the actual amount charged in case of High Sea Sales is not justified. 4. On the other hand, Shri S.J. Sahu, L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... neither the adjudicating authority nor the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have given any concrete evidence that why the actual High Seas Sales Commission of Rs. 500/- is not correct. We are of the view that the 2% service charges can only be added if there is no basis of actual high seas sales commission/service charges. In the present case, there are sufficient materials to support the high seas sale .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... added and not 3% or 2% as contended by the Revenue. We are of the view that ratio of the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. As per our above discussion and following the ratio of the judgment cited (supra), the impugned order is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. ( Pronounced in court on 26/07/2016 )
Case laws, Decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X