TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....New Holland Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. which is part of New Holland N.V. Group of Companies. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 70HP and 50HP tractors under the brand name "New Holland". For the above purpose the appellant imports component parts from New Holland Group of Companies. They also imported spare parts from unrelated companies. Since the two companies are related in terms of Explanation II to Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, pending examination of influence of relationship on the price of goods imported by them provisional assessment was made after issue of investigation circular dated 12-12-96 by depositing 5% extra duty deposit. In reply to the questionnaire the appellant declared that the basis of invoicing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 4(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules which provides that where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relation did not influence the price. The appellant also placed reliance on the Interpretative Notes to Rule 4(3) of the Rules which provides the guidelines for the applicability of sub-rule 3(a), relevant portion of which reads as follows : "3 .......Where it can be shown that the buyer and seller, although related under the provisions of Rule 2(a), buy from and sell to each other as if they were not related, this would demonstrate that the price had not been influenced by the relationship. As an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p has not influenced the price and the pricing methodology adopted by the exporters is reasonable, it is not open to the Commissioner to further contend that the price of the components for the original equipment manufacturing (assembly) market and spare market should be the same. In support of the above contention learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on two decisions of this Tribunal in CCE v. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 2000 (116) E.L.T. 630 and CCE v. Hodak Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 2001 (127) E.L.T. 720. Learned Counsel also referred to Customs Valuation Commentary on the GATT Customs Valuation Code by Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glashoff (page 205) where there is a discussion about 'commercial level.' Relevant portion is quoted below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that the parties are related in terms of the provisions contained under Explanation II to Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Appellate authority has accepted the inability of the appellant to furnish invoices of other parties as genuine. Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that the concept of supplying assembly at the price (manufacturing cost plus 10%) and spares at the price (manufacturing cost plus 20%) is reasonable but he proposed to deviate from the transaction value thus arrived at for the reason that there is no mechanisms in place to distinguish components for assembly and spare parts, and the cost of components should have been the same irrespective of their end-use. On the above basis he comes to the conclusio....