Full Judgment
2. Revenue challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-11-2001 under which he revised the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, Custom House, Chennai. The Commissioner had taken the view that the respondent herein who is the sole distributor of M/s. Magna International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore would come under the term of 'related person' and therefore, the transaction value declared in respect of the import made by the respondent cannot be accepted.
3. It was contended by the importer before the Commissioner (Appeals) that merely because they are the sole distributor of M/s. Magna International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore they cannot be treated as 'related person'. The above contention was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. After hearing both sides we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in accepting the contention raised by the importer : He has noted that the original authority has wrongly applied Rule 2(2)(vi) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1998 in the present case. It was also noted that the original authority misread Explanation II while coming to the conclusion that the respondent's case would come within Rule 2(2)(vi) read with Explanation II. We are in full agreement with the above view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of anything to show specifically that one or more of the situations referred under Rule 2(2) are present in the case, the authority cannot come to the conclusion that the respondent and supplier are related merely for the fact that the respondent is a sole distributor. There was no finding nor was any material to show that the conditions under Rule 2(2) would be satisfied in this case.
5. We, therefore, affirm the order and passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.