PALOD MACHINES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the grounds raised in this appeal by the importer against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that she has not considered the various submissions that were raised before her.

(2.) After hearing both parties, we have necessarily to accept this contention. The question before the Commissioner (Appeals) was the includability in the assessable value of the parts of looms that the importer imported, of the royalty and payment for technical services that the importer permits the collaborator in Korea, that it contracted to pay to that collaborator. In the appeal that was filed against the order of the Commissioner confirming the includability of these amounts, the appellant had raised number of issues. It was contended in the appeal that the value should have been determined in terms of Rule 4(1), not in terms of Rule 8; the determination of value in terms of Rule 8 was prohibited by the Valuation Rules; it is not a condition of sale that the payment of the amount was not required to be made as a condition of sale of the goods and therefore was not formed part of the value. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt wit any of these points at all. The Commissioner (Appeals) in her order sets forth in some details the same contentions that were raised before her, records the facts relating to the hearing and, after saying that she has carefully considered the submissions, says as follows: -

(3.) This abrupt conclusion falls for short of the reasoning that the Commissioner was required to advance in not accepting the submissions made before her. Her order is thus not a speaking order and cannot be upheld.