TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harmendar Singh, Supdt (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: C J MATHEW In this appeal of M/s Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd against the demand of Rs. 2,05,908/- as duties of customs on imports effected between May 2006 and March 2007 and in 2007-08, the holding of goods valued at Rs. 9,53,860/- as liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,05,908/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the importer, notwithstanding both being subsidiaries of the same holding company situated in Germany, that there is no additional consideration envisaged in the transaction or that the conditions of sale had, in any manner, compromised with acceptability of the declared value. Learned Chartered Accountant submits that it is in these enumerated circumstances alone that the declared value would b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ationship between the supplier and the importer with the re-determination of assessable value being the unavoidable consequence. 5. It is an admitted fact that the shipper and the appellant are connected through a common holding company. That, however, does not suffice to accord approval to the rejection of the declared value. In Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Clariant (India) Limited [2007 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the admission, the relationship between the buyer and the seller was yet required to be scrutinised as a prerequisite. 6. We find no evidence of the relationship having impacted the conditions of sale or that the relationship itself had been suppressed to mislead the assessing authority. There is no evidence of any comparable sales effected by the same supplier to other importers in India. On ....