TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its trading business imported currency counting machine (hereinafter referred to as CCM) from two overseas suppliers, namely, M/s. Herny Yung of Taiwan and M/s. Jaewoo Corporation of South Korea. These machines are of two models, namely, Floor Model and Desk Top Model. Initially the appellant imported CCM from M/s. Herny Yung @ USD 900 from April, 2000 to September, 2000. For the period October 2000 till March 2001 the price was reduced to US $ 850 in view of the increase in the volume of import. Since M/s. Henry Yung was not able to supply entire requirement of the appellant, the appellant imported 42 number of CCM from M/s. Jaewoo Corporation at a unit price of 920 US $ under Bill of Entry dated 26-2-2001. Since the price quoted by M/s. J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e basis of the price of earlier consignment imported from M/s. Jaewoo Corporation under invoice dated 14-8-2001 which was cleared through ICD Pithampur under Bill of Entry No. 804 dated 17-9-2001. They also made available copy of the letter addressed by M/s. Henry Yung to the effect that they had offered the price of 790 US $ subject to the condition that the appellant would not deal with any other manufacturer of CCM, that the appellant would buy 600 machines and that the price would be FOB Taiwan and supply would be strictly against receipt of irrevocable letter of credit. On the basis of the above explanation department accepted the assessable value of Floor Model CCM as 790 US $ per unit. 5. The appellant has given details of fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 70,910.00 with two years free warranty and Rs. 75,000/- with three years free warranty respectively. It was under these circumstances, the appellant had to bargain with the supplier's for reducing the price. 6. The authorities below had taken the view that discount of 13.8% claimed by the appellant is not acceptable as it is abnormally high as internationally acceptable discount was only 5.35% to 8.7% and that the appellant did not produce the price list of suppliers in respect of the discount of 13.88%. Secondly, it was alleged that discount of 13.88% is not acceptable on account of reduction in international prices of CCM as the said reduction was in the range of up to 5% only. The contention of the appellant that price of CCM w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice is not acceptable. It is pointed out that during the period considered by the department sale price had come to a minimum amount of 88,000/-. Several pieces of CCM were sold in the price range of Rs.90, 000/- to Rs. 95,000/-. According to the appellant, the Department had committed an error in taking monthly average price of CCM. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that action of the authorities in directly going to Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules without first going through Rules 5 and 6 sequentially, is incorrect. 8. The appellant would submit that there are no circumstances as envisaged by law available in this case which would justify rejection of the transaction value by the authorities. 9. After hearing both s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are part of regular commercial transaction. It cannot be the reason for doubting the correctness of the transaction value declared by the appellant. 10. The Revenue has taken the view that a discount of 13.8% is unacceptable. This view is also not based on materials, which could be accepted. The appellant had pointed that higher percentage of discount has been granted by other parties like M/s. Kobell Limited, England and M/s. Taychain Technology, USA. It is also relevant to note that during the period in question there was downward trend of price in domestic market also. There is no allegation of extra commission or benefit accruing to the seller from the appellant or unaccounted payment being made by the appellant to the seller. ....