9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel that provisions of rule 4(3)(a) needs to be complied, assuming that there is a relationship between the supplier and the appellant herein, the circumstances warrant the same should be examined and the transaction value shall be accepted as the value of the imported goods provided that relationship did not influence the price. In the case in hand, there is nothing on record to show that due to commonality of one director the prices were influenced. Burden of proof of under invoicing is on the revenue, which has not been done. The loading of the price by 100% is incorrect and the impugned order is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/01/06 - Order No.A/94122/16/CB. - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t provide any reasoning for arriving at 100% loading even if the invocation of rule 8 is assumed to be correct; nor the appellant was put on notice as to why the declared value needs to be rejected. He would submit that common directorship between the two entities, which is the reason which has been considered by lower authorities which he submits is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Prasiddha Trading Corporation 2004 (164) ELT 191 wherein it was held that in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher value, mere existence of common director will not entitle the revenue to enhance declared import prices It is his submission that in the case in hand, there is nothing on record to show that there was conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods is not what the importer says it is and what that value actually is- That onus cannot be shifted to the importer. In the case in hand, this onus has not been discharged by the revenue. We also find that this Tribunal in Prasiddha Trading Corporation (supra) was considering similar issue as to the common director in the supplier firm and that of the importers and held that this is no ground for rejection of the transaction value in the absence of any evidence of contemporaneous imports or to show that appellant had any interest in foreign supplier firm. 5.2. Secondly, we do agree with the submission of the Id. counsel that provisions of rule 4(3)(a) needs to be complied, assuming that there is a relationship between the supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
