9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US $ 84.20 per set. By the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed the appeals to the extent that a discount of 12% is required to be made. We find that in the appellant's own case, M/s. K.R.Srilaxmi Deals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata vide Final Order No.FO/A/76043-76044/2016 dt. 14.09.2016, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: "4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not first appellate authority has correctly loaded the assessable value of the Chinese origin tyres. Revenue has relied upon a Bill of Entry No. 206184 dated 4/10/2004 filed by importer M/s. Core ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same functions and to be commercially interchangeable with the goods being valued having regard to the quality, reputation and the existence of trade mark; (ii) produced in the country in which the goods being valued were produced; and (iii) produced by the same person who produced the goods being valued, or where no such goods are available, goods produced by a different person, but shall not include imported goods where engineering, development work, art work, design work, plan or sketch undertaken in India were completed directly or indirectly by the buyer on these imported goods free of charge or at a reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been questioned. It has not been alleged that it was fabricated or fake or that any relationship existed between the importer and the exporter. It was also held that there was no contemporaneous evidence to prove that the goods imported were overinvoiced. The Tribunal, without going into the question regarding the impartiality of the opinion of the two members of the trade panel, observed that they were the competitors. Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321, held that the transaction value would have to be accepted until and unless it is shown by some contemporaneous evidence that the price declared in the invoice was not the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
