9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and that of the ASD cannot be treated as comparable at commercial level and quantitative level; and has also pointed out that the promotion activity was undertaken only by the respondent for which, it was earning higher discount. The Tribunal has also found that the difference gradually decreased from the year 2014-15 and came at par in the year 2017-18. It is apparent that there had been want of application of mind on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to the material circumstances and the relevant factors; and the Tribunal has disapproved his order on relevant considerations and after examining the entire record. Moreover, when the matter essentially proceeds in its own facts and the view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Commissioner had rightly rejected the transaction value of the imported goods, particularly when the imports from a related supplier were found comparable with the imports by the Authorised Stocking Distributers ( ASD ) and the declared value of goods by the respondent was ordered to be re-determined so as to bring it at par with the price shown by the ASD, by enhancing the value by 77%. It is submitted that while reducing such enhancement to 20%, the Tribunal has not given any basis for the same; and has recorded such observations and findings that the remand order has become restrictive, leaving practically no scope for authorities to take a fresh view of the matter. 4. In our view, the contentions remain untenable because the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er find that the difference has gradually decreased after the year 2014-15 and it come at par in the year 2017-18, rather the average import price is higher of the appellant. Further, the quantity imported by the appellant are 20 to 280 times greater than that imported by ASD as already noticed herein above. Thus, mere 5% adjustment allowed by the Court below in the transaction value is without any justification. In view of the transaction value of some of the identical goods imported by the appellant and other importers there appears to be requirement of some adjustment. Accordingly, we modify the direction of enhancement of transaction value by 77% to 20% for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. For the year 2017-18, there is apparently no such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transaction value as per the impugned order. The proposition of Revenue that the import price of ASD are comparable to that of the appellant is a vague, in view of the heavy difference in the quantity imported of identical goods. Thus, the appellant and the ASD cannot be treated as a comparable at commercial level.... 5. The Tribunal has also referred to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and has further observed :- We further find that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 in clause (b) provides that, in case of sale between the related person the transaction value shall be accepted whenever the importer demonstrates that the declared value of the goods being valued, closely approximate to one of the following values imported at or about same time. Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
