9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, we hold that the Original Authority has correctly rejecting such agreement. Discount of 20% - Held that: - the sale value between these two companies of the same group cannot be accepted as transaction value for Customs duty unless the relationship is examined and non-influenced nature of such transaction is brought out by evidence. In the present case, admittedly the transaction is between these two related units of ABB and the Original Authority recorded that such special discount was not recognized in the SVB order and the importer also did not submit any explanation to justify such discount. We find no reason to interfere with such finding - discount correctly denied. Penalties - Held that: - The bill of entry claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 10,00,000/-. Various penalties were imposed on different persons including the present appellants. Penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- under Section 112 and ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were imposed on M/s ABB Ltd. (main appellant herein). Penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- each under Section 112 and 114AA were imposed on Shri Puneet Mitra, Business Controller of M/s ABB Ltd. (second appellant). 2. The learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants submitted that the High Sea Sale is evidenced by various documents like purchase order, order placed on the supplier indicating M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. as the buyer etc. The Original Authority rejected the High Sea Sale only on the ground that the agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on mark on the authenticity of the transaction. Regarding valuation, he submitted that M/s ABB Ltd. India placed an order and imported goods from M/s ABB Ltd., Sweden. Both are part of the same group. Admittedly, the import transaction between group companies is to be scrutinized by officers of SVB for a proper valuation. In the present case, the Original Authority rejected the 20% discount offered by the seller as not admissible because of the reason that no such discount was recognized in the scrutiny by SVB and the importer failed to give justification for such discount. 6. Regarding penalties, learned AR submitted that considering the value of imported goods and the duty involved (Rs.67.76 lakhs), the penalties are nominal and are ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms duty unless the relationship is examined and non-influenced nature of such transaction is brought out by evidence. In the present case, admittedly the transaction is between these two related units of ABB and the Original Authority recorded that such special discount was not recognized in the SVB order and the importer also did not submit any explanation to justify such discount. We find no reason to interfere with such finding. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the appellant on these issues. 9. Regarding the penalties imposed on the appellant, the learned Counsel submitted that the declarations contained in bill of entry are correct and there is no mis-declaration. We are not in agreement with the same. The bill of entry cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
