9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. - C/52600/2015 - 55962 /2016-CU(DB) - Dated:- 10-11-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Dr. S.K. Sheoran, Advocate for the Applicants None, for the Respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is filed by Revenue challenging the order in appeal dated 3.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) (Customs) New Delhi. The respondent imports and distributes melamine tableware and kitchen ware with the brand name EKTRA . These goods are imported from related foreign supplier who holds majority share in the respondent company. The department took the view that imports have taken place from related supplier and the Special Valuation Brand (SVB) looked into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said order a non speaking one. From the impugned order it is observed that DC SVB took recourse to Rule 3(3)(a) of the Valuation Rules, 2007 for accepting the declared invoice values which inter alia provides that where the buyer and the seller are related, the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined and the transaction value shall be accepted as the value of imported goods provided that the relationship did not influence the price. It is not intended that there should be an examination of the circumstances in all cases where the buyer and the seller are related. Such examination will only be required where there are doubts about the acceptability of the price. Where the proper officer of customs has no doubts about the accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information and recorded in is findings that nothing contrary to the submissions made by the Respondents came to the notice of this Branch. On the other and I find that the Revenue has not brought our any evidence in its appeal to cast any doubt on genuineness of the documents available before DC SVB or provided any contrary information to doubt the identical/similar goods at higher prices or any evidence of payment over and above the invoice values. Under these circumstances, there is no justification in challenging the order passed by DC SVB 6. Now coming to the ground of applicability of provisions of Rule 3(3)(b) in the instant case raised by the Revenue, I find that under Rule 13 of the Valuation Rules, 2007, Interpretative Note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar goods made by other importers, thus, they are unable to demonstrate fairness of their declared invoice values under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Valuation Rules. In view of these facts, it is clear that since the Respondents are unable to provide any information regarding transaction value/deductive value/computed values of imports of identical or similar goods made by other importers, provisions of Rule 3(3)(b) are not attracted. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed . 4. After going through the record of the case including the orders passed by both the authorities below, we are convinced that the order passed by the original authority merits no interference, in the light of the distributor agreement between the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
