2024 (4) TMI 971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment and the imports made by appellant, the matter was referred to Special Valuation Branch (SVB) for detailed investigation on the ground that the appellant and M/s PMT were "related persons" in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988. The appellant has discharged duty on invoice value which allowed 25% discount. The agreement however showed only 17% discount. After due process of law, the original authority passed order dated 18.02.2005 holding that the appellant and M/s. PMT were related parties and that appellant is not eligible for 25% discount as contented by them and eligible only for 17% discount as per the agreement dated 05.04.2002. 1.1 Against such order the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (appeals), and vide Or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble for 25% discount. In the earlier adjudication the department failed to take into consideration these facts. The e-mail was submitted by the appellant only in the subsequent de-nova proceeding. In spite of fax communication and e-mail the department held that the discount of 25% cannot be allowed and that appellant is eligible only the discount to the limit of 17%. It was held in the earlier order that parties though are related, the relationship has influenced the price only upto 17% of the discount. 2.1 The Ld.Counsel adverted to the discussion of the Tribunal in the Final Order dated 22.09.2006 at para9. The Tribunal had categorically held that the argument of appellant that they were getting 25% discount from the supplier from 15.06....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egal and proper. 5.1 As seen from the facts narrated above, in the agreement dated 16.06.2001 executed by the appellant and the foreign supplier, the amount of discount was mentioned as 17% only. Prior to the said agreement the foreign supplier had issued fax communication to the appellant stating that they intent to give 25% discount. It is submitted that inadvertently the discount was mentioned as 17% in the agreement. The parties could not take steps for amendment of the agreement. The invoices raised by foreign supplier showed 25% discount and the remittance by the appellant was made accordingly. The department does not have a case that the remittances do not match with invoice value. In para 8 of the denovo order the adjudicating auth....