2022 (1) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), New Delhi seeks to maintain this appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 27-5-2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('the Tribunal'). 2. By the order impugned, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-dealer; has modified the directions for enhancement of transaction value of imported goods by 20% instead of 77% for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17; has rejected the enhancement for the year 2017-18 while holding that the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 would not apply; and has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, SVB to re-determine adjustment, if any, in the transaction value on the basis of deductive value and computed value....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs in the following :- "27. We find that the appellant is not the sole importer and the goods have also been imported by other distributor/seller with respect to some of the goods namely Authorized Stocking Distributors (ASD). Further, most of the goods imported by the appellant like RF products and on made to order products as well as non RF products only imported by the appellant are not imported by the ASD and others. We further find that the appellant imports in bulk for resale and also stocks the goods in sufficient quantity to meet the demand for the goods which results to additional cost to them in warehousing and reselling of the goods. Further, the appellant also undertakes sales promotion activity which is not done ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ASD do not import 'RF products' as well as the 'made to order products', but some products are imported both by the appellant and the ASD, but are not comparable. Such imports constitute a significant part of the total imports made by the appellant. Such imports are in the range of 16 to 51% during the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 or an average of 36% of the total imports made by the appellant. Further, we find that the quantity imported by the appellant is more than 200 times than the quantity imported by the ASD. Further, we find that the ASD placed order for import usually when they have sales order in hand and do not undertake stocking of the products. Whereas the appellant irrespective of the sales orders in hand, the appellant import....