9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 5, no values of contemporaneous imports were taken for comparison; arbitrarily 30% has been loaded without any authority of law under Rule 5 and clearly the OIO transgressed the scope of remand. The Review Order passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners states that the impugned order has given the reason for not accepting the invoice value as per Rule 4(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and proceeds to say that as the value cannot be determined as per Rule 5, Rule 6 recourse was taken to Rule 7. This ground of appeal is contrary to the facts stated therein OIO. The OIO has not at all discussed the non-applicability of Rule 5, Rule 6 in a sequential manner and the applicability of Rule 7 - thus, the premise on which the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Vide de novo Order-in-Original No.783/2015 dt. 20.11.2015, the Asst. Commissioner has passed an order holding that the transaction value declared by the respondent cannot be accepted and needs to be loaded by 30% under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. On an appeal filed by the respondents, Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.470/2016 dated 30.6.2016, held that the rejection of transaction value was baseless and the Order-in-Original (OIO) was wrong in loading 30% on the declared assessable value. Aggrieved by said OIA, the department is in appeal No. C/21632/2016 on the grounds that the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly rejected the loading of 30% based on deductive value for the reason that the adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td.: 2005 (185) ELT 269 (Tri.-Chennai), he submits that trader and actual user cannot be considered to be at the same commercial level; relying on Armstrong World Industries India Pvt. Ltd.: 205 (317) ELT 324 (Tri.-Mum.) and Giessel India Pvt. Ltd. : 2015 (315) ELT 479 (Tri.-Mum.), he submits that as there is no allegation of any flowback or payment of additional consideration to the foreign collaborator, transaction value cannot be rejected. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. On going through the Order-in-Appeal (OIA), we find that the learned Commissioner (A) has given a detailed and a reasoned order as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Commissioner (A) has discussed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l goods and the impugned order does not specify any contemporaneous imports; moreover, Rule 5 does not provide for any addition arbitrarily. The learned Commissioner (A) has correctly observed that the requirements of Rule 3(3)(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 2007/Rule (3)(b)(ii) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 are fulfilled and the value declared is acceptable for the purposes of Section 14. 4. We find that OIA is very reasoned, logical and maintainable; we find that no cogent reasons have been brought out in the OIO for rejection of declared value; even when it was rejected, the Rules were not sequentially followed; even then, while following the deductive method, due allowances were not given and correct data was not compared. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
