2019 (12) TMI 949

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort goods from HID Asia Pacific. As the supplier and the importer are related Special Valuation Bench (SVB) proceedings have been initiated. On finalization of the proceedings, Asst. Commissioner, SVB issued an Oder-in-Original 5756/2007 dated 17.1.2007 vide which it was held that there was no need to interfere with the transaction value. On an appeal filed by the department, Order-in-Appeal No.560/2009 dated 29.6.2009 was passed remanding the matter to the original authority to determine the value in terms of Rule 5 of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. On an appeal filed by the respondent, CESTAT has ordered that the matter be decided by the original authority. Vide de novo Order-in-Original No.783/2015 dt. 20.11.2015, the Asst. Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988; Having rejected the value, OIO has not proceeded sequentially in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988; the OIO considered sale price of the respondents in the domestic market of India without giving any allowance for the expenses incurred in transportation, storage, value addition, sale expenses, etc. The OIO passed in de novo has not only gone beyond the scope of remand proceedings but also has traversed beyond the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. He relied upon Eicher Tractors: 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) and Home International: 2014 (299) ELT 245; relying on Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd.: 2005 (185) ELT 269 (Tri.-Chennai), he submits that trader and actual user cannot be considered to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondents such as transportation, storage, value addition, sale expenses, etc.; moreover, deductive method has not fixed any limits for profit and general expenditure. The learned Commissioner (A) has rightly held that the adjudicating authority has not followed the procedures and methods specified under deductive method; he has also not quantified the expenditure as discussed above. The learned Commissioner (A) has also correctly observed that the declared value has been rejected without proper basis and such rejection becomes illegal; Rule 5 speaks about adopting the value of contemporaneous import of identical goods and the impugned order does not specify any contemporaneous imports; moreover, Rule 5 does not provide for any addition....