TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th May 2001 with FSP Holding A.G, Switzerland for 100% equity participation in the Indian Company. The respondents was considered as related person and registered with GATT Valuation Cell. GATT Valuation Cell after examining the prices of some other importers in respect of three products found that average difference of these three products and their prices was to the extent of 34.8%. He accordingly vide his order 29-11-2001 loaded the invoice prices in respect of all products imported by the respondents to the extent of 34.8%. The respondents filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order No. 221/2002 MCH dated 12-4-2002 observed that the importers cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... additional consideration for goods imported by the importer. Thus a loading of 27% was done by him vide his order dated 29-7-2002. He further held that the supplier of the imported goods are a group of 100% equity holder of the importer and thus undoubtedly related persons under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 3. Respondents again filed an appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner with Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) has in his impugned order observed that lower adjudicating authority has passed an order by ignoring his finding wherein he clearly held that in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. the buyer and supplier cannot be considered as related in terms of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6 of his order has observed that what the lower authority was required to do was to make an annexure of all the items imported and make a comparative chart of value on the basis of contemporary evidence. This would have enabled him to pass a legal and speaking order in the matter. In view of this observation, it was proper for Commissioner (Appeals) to give an opportunity to the importer to submit a comparison chart for all the items imported by them vis-a-vis 3rd party import invoice or in the alternative remand the matter to adjudicating authority with suitable direction to the importer to submit all relevant evidence for the purpose of comparison in respect of all items imported by him. Further his observation that loading of 20% for fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into account the contemporary import, if any. Therefore Revenue cannot challenge this order on the ground that the importer is a related person or that loading can be done on the basis of only three products. 8. As regards merits, Revenue's contention that importer should submit contemporary prices of identical goods is not correct as once it has been held that two persons are not related, it is the department who has to produce evidence of contemporary import to load the price and not otherwise. The importer has given the contemporary price available with him, two of which are stated to be at the same price or lesser price in respect of two parts which has been completely ignored. In respect of other parts also the loading has been done....