TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B Circular No. 06/2006 was issued enhancing the EDD to 5%; appellants, vide letter dated 28.03.2007, submitted documents such as copies of Invoices and bills of Entry, Statement of Import of goods, Certificate of CIF value of imported goods, Supply Agreement, Technology Agreement, Statement of Accounts, List of Shareholders; Vide letter dated 03.04.2007, AC, SVB sought the Appellant to submit certain "test" values to support the declared transaction value of the imported capital goods; a personal hearing in the matter was held on 24.04.2007; AC, SVB passed Order-in-Original dated 30.05.2007, and rejected the Appellant's declared transaction value; loaded the value of raw materials by 100% to 290%, after allowing quantity discount of 10%; loaded 10% on capital goods towards technology-related modifications; the Learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) passed Order-in-Appeal dated 19.03.2008, upholding Order-in-Original. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are grave and manifest errors of both law and fact apparent on the face of the impugned Orders given the (a). Arbitrary reference of the Appellant's case of Special Valuation Branch (SVB) and (b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant responded to the Department vide letter dated 22.05.2007; Order-in-Original was passed on 30.05.2007; for reasons best known to the Learned AC, SVB, the Order-in-Original was passed in only a weeks' time from the date of the Appellant's letter; Order-in-Original was passed without giving any opportunity without considering the documents properly. 2.3. The learned counsel submits moreover, submits that The impugned Orders fly in the very face of Rule 4(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and settled principles of law on redetermination of value; as per the Rule 4(3)(a) of the CVR, 1988, department needs to accept the transaction value even in cases where the parties are related; before rejecting the transaction value, a duty is cast on the Department to examine the circumstances surrounding the sale and the transaction value may be rejected only if such examination indicates that the relationship between the parties influenced the price; Para 2 of Interpretative Notes to Rule 4(3) categorically states that "such examination will only be required where there are doubts about the acceptability of the price. Where the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded the transaction value on the assumption that the same were of superior/pure quality, without even considering it necessary or proper to obtain a test report to assess the quality of the imported goods; no clarification whatsoever was sought from the Appellant as to the relevance (or otherwise) of the Chemical Weekly Report before proceeding to rely on the Report; no opportunity of hearing in this regard was given to the Appellants. 2.6. The learned counsel submits also that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the OIO in a mechanical manner without independently applying his mind and without having regard to the law; the Order is a non-reasoned and non-speaking one; so far as loading of transaction value in case of raw materials is concerned, the Order-in-Appeal does not even expressly mention if the finding of the original authority is correct and merely notes in few sentences what the original authority had observed; in addition, the Order-in-Appeal does not examine or discuss if the requirements of Rule 4(3)(a) were met in the instant case; whether a prima facie case existed for reference to the SVB; whether the original authority has examined the circumstances to in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the transaction value approximated to the values ascertained at about the same time. He submits that the importer could not demonstrate the same, value was needed to be loaded. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the gist of submissions by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the department did not consider their submissions in entirety; the reasons for referring the case for SVB and re-determination of the declared values is not spelt out; the department conveniently ignored the data submitted by the appellants justifying that value adopted by them; the department has relied upon the international chemical report without actually seeing whether the items mentioned therein and the items imported are comparable in quality as well as quantity and that no test report has been obtained. The learned counsel also alleges that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was cryptic and unreasoned. 5. We find that the appellants have filed written submissions before Commissioner (Appeals) stating that: • The quantities reflected in chemical weekly report were always for less than metric ton whereas the appellants impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority has given a finding that 'party has not submitted any test report with facilitations of imported goods to judge their claim that the wax imported by them is full of impurities and not refined. At the same time, I find that the department has also not got the goods tested to get the specifications and decide whether refined or not. Besides, there is nothing on record to differentiate between LDPE wax and PE wax. Even the importer has not differentiated while submitting the chemical weekly data for comparative analysis. Under these circumstances, I have no other option but to accept the minimum transaction value of polyethylene wax of the contemporaneous period available in the chemical weekly report in terms of Rule 5(3) of CVR, 1988'. We find that the original authority has erred to the extent that though he finds that in comparison to the weekly reports, the quantities imported by the appellants are huge. Yet, he proceeds to compensate the same by 10% quantity discount. We find that this has no legal basis. First up all, it was incumbent on the department to show as to how the relation between the appellants and their overseas sellers has affected the prices. Thereafter,....