2016 (7) TMI 1197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 736/2004-NCH dt. 8.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, wherein the Ld. Commissioner loaded the value at the rate of 2% on the CIF value to arrive at the assessable value of imported goods purchase by the appellant on High Seas Sale basis from their group company M/s. Dujodwala Produc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asis of loading of 4% as a high seas sales commission to the invoice value. However, he instead of 4%, loaded 2% of the CIF value as per his opinion. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice therefore we proceed to decide the matter on the basis of available records and as per the grounds of appeal. The appellant submits that they had submitted details of sales to Mumbai Custo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmits that the 2% High Seas Sales charges as per Public Notice is procedural and not mandatory. The appellant placed reliance on this Tribunal s decision in the case of XPRO India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2000 (118) ELT 776 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal held that the addition of 3% or 2% by the Customs authorities to the actual amount charged in case of High Sea Sales is not justi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... towards High Seas Sales Commission. We find that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have given any concrete evidence that why the actual High Seas Sales Commission of Rs. 500/- is not correct. We are of the view that the 2% service charges can only be added if there is no basis of actual high seas sales commission/service charges. In the present case, there are ....