2009 (3) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... scount” allowed to the appellants had to be included in the value of the impugned goods in terms of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. He had also found that Valuation Rules 5 and 6 were not applicable in determining the value of impugned goods. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that “agent discount” allowed to the appellants had to be added for assessment of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing, it is submitted that the impugned order held that the goods imported by the appellants had to be assessed by applying Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (CVR) and that the original authority had ruled out the applicability of Rule 5 CVR in assessing the impugned goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) had made out a new case different from that decided by the original authority. Relying on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ning the value of impugned goods. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that "agent discount" allowed to the appellants had to be added for assessment of the impugned goods invoking Rule 5 of the CVR. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) made a new case different from the one contained in the order impugned before him and that the same is not sustainable in law. In the circumst .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X