TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny. Therefore, the transaction value was not accepted. The Special Valuation Branch investigation was conducted. On conclusion of the investigation, the authorities found that the Transaction Value cannot be accepted. After going through all the available records, the price mentioned in the International Price List was taken as the basis and a discount of 35% was given to the appellants. The price was fixed in that manner. The appellants were highly aggrieved over the impugned decision, which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 5. The appellants have made the following grounds :- (1) It was stated that the Department has not issued any Show Cause Notice before finalizing the provisional assessments. The following case-laws were relied on. (a) Modipon Limited v. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 126 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 307 (Tri.-Del.) (c) Auto & General Engg. Co v. CC, Ahmedabad - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1214 (Tri.-Del.) In all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared for the spares & consumables shall be accepted in the same manner as it was accepted for tool holders. (5) The OIO and the OIA has compared prices taking each invoice as a unit and failed to take the total imports made by the appellant in a year. If one year is taken as the basis, the quantity differences are huge with respect to third parties as illustrated in tables A and B. Such huge differences make the transactions as uncomparable under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The department has not produced any evidence for valuation except relying on the sample copy of the invoice furnished by the appellants. Such stray and sample imports are not an acceptable evidence for determination of price. (6) It was urged that the valuation cannot be determined by comparing the transactions of different classes of buyers (actual user and trader).The appellant is a trader importing goods in bulk for stock and sale whereas individual consumers importing a small quantity for their actual use. Both of them constitute different class of buyers and their transactions are not comparable. The following case-laws were relied on ;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discounts offered by KOMET Germany to its distributors/dealers across the world. The said information is furnished below : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d parties are far too less (ranging from 1% to 10%) compared to that of the appellants who are stock and sale traders whereas the third parties are one time importers and actual users. Both are difference classes of buyers and such transactions are not comparable. In the following rulings, it was held that in the case of vast differences in commercial levels and quantitative levels of imports, the transactions are not at all comparable. (a) Saahil Trends v. CC (Prev.), Ahmedabad - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 75 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Gemplus India Private Limited v. CC, Chennai - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 269 (Tri.-Bang.) (c) CC, Ahmedabad v. R.H. Marketing Services - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 304 (Tri.-Mumbai) (d) Punjab Niryat Ayat Pvt. Ltd. v. CC - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 340 (Tribunal) (e) Elite Packaging Industries v. CC & CE - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 311 (Tribunal) (f) Polyvinyl Industrial Corprn. v. CC, Calcutta - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 426 (Tribunal) (g) Narayan International v. CC - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 126 (Tri.) (11)&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter are related parties. Therefore, straightaway Transaction Value could not have been accepted. That is why, the matter was referred to the Special Valuation Branch, Chennai. The Adjudicating Authority has taken all points into consideration while arriving at the discount of 35% from the International Price List. It was urged that there is abnormal discount offered to the importers compared to the other third party imports in India. Therefore, it was necessary on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to determine the correct level of discount, which ought to have been allowed and, however, he had taken into account the commercial level imported and also the administrative costs, which he had taken at 14%. He had fixed a discount of 35% from the International Price, which is very reasonable and which has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of this, it was stated that the Tribunal should uphold the impugned order. 7. We have gone through the records of the case very carefully. It is seen that the appellant is a subsidiary of the German company. Since, there is a relationship involved between the exporter and the importer, the Transaction Value was not accep....