2006 (6) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 296/2003, dated 16-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The appellants are the branch office of a foreign supplier namely Montronix Inc USA. The appellants have imported tool monitoring system and parts thereof from the Principal Company.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Authority are well reasoned and therefore, should be upheld. 6. We have gone through the records of the case. The appellants have a branch office of M/s. Montronics. There is very clear evidence that the transaction between them is not at arm's length. This can be seen clearly from the price variation between the price charged to the appellants and that to third party importer. For Example....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ained that the USA list price to customer includes - (i)      Installation charges viz., installation, commissioning, system fine tuning, post installation audits, visits on Customer's request, visits during warranty period, warranty coverage for hardwares etc. (ii)    Training Customer's team on operational usage, maintenance, to derive benefits; and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duced by the negotiated discounter, which varies from Customer to Customer based on volume, configuration, OEM and end user location and payment terms." The average difference of price between the appellant and third party import is to the tune of 148%. Since the appellant incurs certain expenses as mentioned earlier, the adjudicating authority allowed a benefit of 30% of the difference of 148%....