9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pricing of the imported goods made are as per price list supplied by the supplier of the collaborator. This is not sufficient to discharge the liability in tennis of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - the Order-in-Original is not speaking order so much as there is no material to back the assertion made in the said order. Matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/1022/05 - A/85010/17/CB - Dated:- 27-12-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Anil Balani, Advocate the appellant Shri M.K. Mall, AC (AR) for the respondent Per: Raju Rithi Lightnin Mixers Pvt. Ltd. entered into a technical lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion from the principals for complete products sold by them in India and same is received in foreign exchange through remittances. There is no extra payments made by the Indian Company on and above the invoice price of the imported goods. It is also observed that the importers have not imported any capital goods and machinery from their collaborators and their associates nor they have obtained any patent, licence or technical assistance from them. There is no third party import of their items from the said supplier. There is no evidence on record to show that the relationship has influenced the invoice value. On the basis of the above observation, the transaction value declared by the appellant was accepted for the purpose of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect and thereafter come to the conclusion that the declared transaction value needs to be accepted. He argued that the used Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly set aside the said order. 3. Ld. AR reties on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the Order-in-Original clearly records that appellant and the foreign collaborator are related in terms of Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. If that was so, it was incumbent on the adjudicating authority to give finding in terms of Rule 4(3)(a) and (b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. We find no such in the order of the original adjudicating authority either in terms of Rule 4(3)(a) or (b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
