T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per facts on record, the appellants had imported Drill Jars and Drill Bits and filed Bill of Entry with the Customs declaring the value as shown in the invoices issued by the suppliers.

(2.) In the said invoice a Trade Discount of US 1793 was given to the appellants. The dispute relates as to whether the said trade discount given by the supplier is required to be added in the assessable value of the goods or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has observed that though the lump sum discount of US 1793 has been shown in the invoice, there is no percentage of the discount indicated in the said invoice as such the same cannot be allowed to the importers. As regards the letter produced by the importer from their suppliers to the effect that the discount works out to be 16.23 percent and is the normal trade discount extended to the purchasers, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the same by stating that there is no other documentary evidence to substantiate that such higher percentage of trade discount is allowed to all the buyers.

(3.) We do not find any justification in the above reasoning of the appellate authority. Merely because, the percentage of the discount has not been shown separately in the invoice, the same will not make the importer disentitled to the benefit of the discount. We also find that the supplier has clarified in his subsequent certificate that the above discount at 16.23 per cent and is the normal trade discount extended to all the purchasers. The said letter has been held to be a letter issued as a second thought by the Commissioner without any basis. There is no evidence on record to show that the suppliers' letter written above does not represent the correct factual position at their end. We also note that the total consideration shown in the invoice as US 11200 has been paid by the importer through documents and there is no other evidence to show that there has been more flow back to the suppliers. In these facts and circumstances we do no find any reason to uphold the impugned order passed by the authorities below. Accordingly, we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.