9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has cited proof whatsoever to indicate either that the prices declared by the appellants were influenced by their relation or that there was a certain amount of flow back to the foreign supplier in the one form or the other. In the absence of the above, no amount of questioning, though seemingly logical, would be of any help to the Revenue. It is a settled principle of law that the authority making the allegations has to prove with sufficient evidence. In the instant case, leaving alone the evidence, even reasons to entertain such a belief have not been properly brought forth or established. It is found that neither the reviewing authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has made out a case for striking down the order of the original auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , were issued holding that there is no change in the pattern of sale and there was no flow back in any manner. These orders were accepted by the Commissioner. In 2015, the appellant approached the SVB in respect of the supplies from M/s. Hanil Interior Co. Ltd., Korea which is also owned by the foreign company of the appellant. Order-in-Original dated 05.06.2015 was passed taking into account the material facts accepting that the import from the overseas supplier was on principal to principal basis only; Indian company has not entered into any additional arrangements other than those already declared; there is no change in the share holding pattern of the company and that the Indian company have entered into an Engineering Support Agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required only when there are doubts about the applicability of the declared prices; the assessing officer has examined all the aspects involved; it is not open for the appellate authority to entertain a doubt as to whether the declared price was correct or otherwise without citing any reasons; the lower authority has examined all the records of the case; has considered the earlier SVB orders and accepted the price declared as he had no doubt about the transactions. Therefore, there was no reason for the Commissioner to interfere with the order and pass an order in review; the reviewing authority has not spelt out any reasons as to why proper officer should discard the provisions of Rule 3 (3) (a) and follow Rule 3 (3) (b) when there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion value, as if it is between a buyer and a seller in the normal course of International Trade and the examination of circumstances surrounding the sale clearly indicate that, the relationship has not influenced the Transaction Value. Hence I accept that the pricing of the imported goods are at arm s length and the same can be accepted as transaction value under Rule 3 (3) (a) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported goods) Rules, 2007. We find that original authority concluded that though the foreign suppliers M/s. Hanil E-Hwa Company Limited, Korea and M/s. Hanil Interior Company Limited, Korea and the importer- appellant M/s.Hanil Automotive India Private Limited are related in terms of Rule 2 (2) (i) (iv) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority has not followed any of the above said two ways to examine the influence of relationship on price. If examination of circumstances of sale could not establish that price was not influenced by the relationship, the importer should have been asked to demonstrate that the declared value closely approximates to test values. In terms of Rule 3 (3) (b) of CVR 2007 burden is on the importer to demonstrate that the declared value closely approximate to test values. In case, the importer failed to do so, transaction value should have been rejected and subsequent rules should have been applied in hieratical order. 7. We find, on going through the records of the case, that as submitted by the appellants, the reviewing authority did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e commercial level and quantity or applicable exclusively to the imports made by the appellants, goes beyond the grounds raised in review. We find that above averment of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not only farfetched but also beyond the scope of Valuation Rules. In respect of valuation of imported goods, the price at which the foreign supplier sells the goods to the importers in other countries is not at all relevant. We find that it is not open for the reviewing authority or Commissioner (Appeals) to conduct a fishing expedition and to raise questions without giving sufficient and enough reasons for entertaining such a reasonable belief. Neither the reviewing authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has cited proof whatsoever to ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
