Appeals allowed, order set aside, matter remanded for further consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to consider additional submissions and evidence within a month to make a lawful determination on the denial of deductions on discounts and transport charges, as well as the imposition of penalties on the appellant and its authorised signatory. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the actual passing on of discounts and conducting a thorough assessment before making decisions on deductions and penalties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of deductions on discounts and transport charges by the Commissioner.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant and its authorised signatory.

Analysis:

1. Denial of Deductions on Discounts and Transport Charges:
The appellant, a pharmaceutical company, claimed deductions on discounts and transport charges while determining the assessable value of its products. The Commissioner proposed to deny these deductions, alleging that the discounts were not actually passed on to customers and that transport charges were also recovered from them. The basis for these proposals was a declaration filed by the appellant in February 1999, stating no system of giving trade discounts and recovering equalized freight from customers. However, the appellant contended that an earlier declaration in March 1998 did indicate deductions for discounts and transport charges. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner failed to verify the receipt of the March 1998 declaration, crucial for establishing the passing on of discounts. The Tribunal emphasized that the actual passing on of discounts, not mere declarations, should determine eligibility for deductions. Regarding transport charges, the Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence on where the title to goods passed, necessitating further examination by the Commissioner.

2. Imposition of Penalty:
The second issue pertained to the penalty imposed on the appellant's authorised signatory for alleged duty evasion. The Tribunal clarified that the liability for penalties, both on the signatory and the appellant, hinges on the establishment of duty underpayment. As the appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to consider additional submissions and evidence promised by the appellant's representative within a month, along with any materials from the department, to make a lawful determination on both issues. The Tribunal stressed the need for a thorough assessment based on the evidence presented before making any decisions on deductions and penalties.

---