TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 7A of the said Rules. The original authority did not accept the very prayer on the ground that the importer M/s. Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. is related to M/s. Procter & Gamble Co., Thailand as per 2(2)(iv) read with Explanation II of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and had ordered that the transaction value declared in the invoice may be loaded by 30% under Rule 8 of the CV Rules, 1988 and all provisional assessments may be finalised by loading the invoice value by 30%. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Deputy Commissioner's order-in-original by setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner determining the value under Rule 8 is not maintainable. However, he has also rejected the appellant's prayer for adopting the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous judgments on this issue. They are also aggrieved with the method adopted by the original authority and not considering the appellant's evidence of record and various pleas taken up by them. 3. We have heard Sr. Counsel Shri Arshad Hidayatulla Sr. Advocate accompanied by Shri Vikram Nankani, Adv.; Ms. Elizabeth Seshadhri, Adv. and Shri Karthik Seshadhri, Adv. for the appellants and Shri A. Jayachandran, DR for the Respondents. 4. Ld. Sr. Counsel also produced written synopsis besides referring us to the various documents and written submission which has been produced by the appellants before both the authorities. In short, Sr. Counsel pointed out that although the appellant and the supplier is a 100% subsidiary of the Procter & Gam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules grants liberty to the importer to request and get the approval of the proper officer for applying Rule 7A, preceding to Rule 7. In view of the authorities overlooking to the proviso to Rule 6A, Commissioner (Appeals) has committed a mistake in not remanding to the original authorities to proceed to assess in terms of Rule 7. He submits that a clear offence was made by Commissioner (Appeals) to the appellants that in case if transaction value was not accepted then the procedure has been laid down in Rule 7A which deals with computed value as required to be adopted while so adopting the value that could be arrived that would be same as that of transaction value. He submits that in view of these the appellant's prayer for consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examine as to whether any mutuality of interest between the supplier and the importer in terms of flow back and profits and whether the transaction value can be rejected. It is now well settled by merely because the importer and the appellant is a related person and that by itself will not call for rejection of transaction value unless it is shown that the transaction is not at arms length and when there is flow back of funds. In this particular case the appellant has produced enormous documents to show that the pricing has been uniform world wide in respect of transaction between affiliates. The price at which the goods are bought and sold inter se affiliates of P & G is cost of raw materials and packing materials (including wastage), man....