2018 (9) TMI 1601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 28.12.2015 had rejected the invoice value and loaded 166.6% under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Against such decision, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. In such denovo adjudication, the original authority once again ordered for loading of 166.6% of the declared value in terms of Rule 8 ibid. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan submitted that the appellant had submitted all relevant information to SVB as per the prescribed questionnaire and also supplied the international price list of the supplier, local sales invoic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ply loaded 166.6% without looking into these aspects. The ld. counsel has furnished working sheets before us and argued that the same would be acceptable for valuation under the deductive method. The said worksheet contains price at which goods are imported, overhead expenses, price at which sold and profit margin. That sometimes, the profit margin is so less and this would show that the appellant has not made undue profit by such discount. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Armstrong World Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2015 9317) ELT 324 to argue that the determination of value by assessing authority by adopting deductive method under Rule of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) R....