9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T) Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri N.D. George, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - Brief facts of the case are that respondents M/s. F.S.P. (India) Pvt. Ltd. have imported certain goods from M/s. FSP Fluid Systems Partners Holding AG Switzerland and FSP S.A. Luxembourg. The importer entered into a financial collaboration agreement dated 18th May 2001 with FSP Holding A.G, Switzerland for 100% equity participation in the Indian Company. The respondents was considered as related person and registered with GATT Valuation Cell. GATT Valuation Cell after examining the prices of some other importers in respect of three products found that average difference of these thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In the de novo adjudication the importers pointed out a third party import price of another item wherein the difference in price was found to be 14.15% only. The adjudicating authority after noticing that variations in the price is not consistent and vary between 34.08% and 14.15% as indicated in the fresh invoices submitted, reduced the loading from 34.08% to 25% on which he added 2% towards brand fees being additional consideration for goods imported by the importer. Thus a loading of 27% was done by him vide his order dated 29-7-2002. He further held that the supplier of the imported goods are a group of 100% equity holder of the importer and thus undoubtedly related persons under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and speaking order in the matter. He further observed that adjudicating authority's comparison of FOR values and then adding 20% towards freight element itself was illegal. Commissioner (Appeals) after making this observation set aside the order as being neither legal nor proper. It is against this order that Revenue has come up in appeal. 4. Revenue in its appeal has contended that Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of his order has observed that what the lower authority was required to do was to make an annexure of all the items imported and make a comparative chart of value on the basis of contemporary evidence. This would have enabled him to pass a legal and speaking order in the matter. In view of this observation, it was proper for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority should keep this findings in view. It was further observed that pro rata loading cannot be done on the basis of inputs relating to three products only. This finding was also required to be kept in view. Revenue has not challenged these findings by filing an appeal. Therefore remand was not an open remand but a limited remand. Adjudicating authority was required to determine the assessable value by taking into account the contemporary import, if any. Therefore Revenue cannot challenge this order on the ground that the importer is a related person or that loading can be done on the basis of only three products. 8. As regards merits, Revenue's contention that importer should submit contemporary prices of identical goods is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
