Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mosaic India Private Limited vs Jamnagar(Prev) on 11 June, 2020
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 3
Customs Appeal No. 220 of 2011
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No- 21/COMMR-A-/JMN/2011 dated- 11/03/2011
passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-JAMNAGAR(PREV)]
Mosaic India Private Limited .... Appellant
Gurgaon, 11th Floor,
Building 8c, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-iii,
GURGAON,
MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
C.C.-Jamnagar(prev) .... Respondent
SHARDA HOUSE...BEDI BANDAR ROAD, OPP. PANCHAVATI, JAMNAGAR GUJARAT APPEARANCE :
Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate with Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the Appellant Shri T.G. Rathod, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. A/11113 / 2020 DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2020 DATE OF DECISION: 11.06.2020 RAJU This appeal has been filed by M/s Mosaic India P. Ltd. against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand of Customs Duty along with interest.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellants are engaged in import of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) falling under Chapter 31 of the Custom Tariff. They generally purchase DAP from M/s Mosaic Crop Nutrition LLC, USA in large quantities every year. The appellants are related to the supplier, hence, transactions were looked into by Special Valuation Branch (SVB) to examine as to whether the relationship has influenced the price or not. Vide order dated 22.06.2006, SVB observed that the value declared by the appellants was at arms-length. This conclusion was reached on the basis of 2 C/220/2011 the fact that the price arrived at by the parties are based on prices reflected in international bulletin like FMB International Price guide.
2.1 Learned Counsel submitted that even today, the SVB has been holding the view that relationship has not influenced the value of the goods imported by the appellants. The appellants and supplier determine the transaction value prevailing international price based on the price bulletin. Thus, the relationship had never played any role in determining the price of the import of goods from the related party suppliers.
2.3 Learned counsel further pointed out that the appellants entered into two independent contracts dated 17.12.2007. The salient features of these two contracts are as under:
Features Contract - I Contract - II
(33-35) (36-38)
Commodity Diammonium Phosphate Diammonium
Phosphate
Date of March 2008 March 2008
Shipment
Payment Terms Payment to be made at At sight (without any
180 days from the date credit period)
of Bill of Lading
Price agreed US $ 668.75 US $ 657
upon
The goods were The goods were sold
imported into India by by the appellants to
the appellants. M/s Mosaic Corp.
Hong Kong Ltd. @ US
The dispute is with $ 966/- PMT.
reference to the value at Contract-III
which these goods were
imported by the These werein turn sold
appellants. by Hong Kong
company to Tata
Chemicals Ltd. @ US $
968 PMT. Contract-
IV.
2.4 Learned counsel further pointed out while the goods covered by Contract- II was still under voyage, vide contract dated 05.03.08(Contract III), the appellants had sold the entire quantity of 35,000 MTS of DAP to Mosaic 3 C/220/2011 Crop Nutrition (Hong Kong) Limited at the then prevailing international price of US $ 966 PMT.
2.5 Learned counsel further pointed out that Mosaic Crop Nutrition (Hongkong) Ltd. vide contract dated 05.03.08 (Contract IV) had sold the same quantity (35,000 MTs of DAP) to Tata Chemicals Ltd. at a price of US $ 968 PMT. This transaction too happened between Mosaic Crop Nutrition (Hongkong) Ltd and Tata Chemicals, while the goods were under voyage. Such a sale/ purchase is called merchandise trade by the RBI, in its Master Circular relating to export of goods.
2.6 Bill of Entry dated 3.4.2008 for clearance of 19581.060 MTs was filed by the appellants for clearance of the DAP covered by Contract I. The value declared was US $ 668.75 PMT. Another bill of entry dated 5.4.2008 was filed by Tata Chemicals Ltd. for clearance of 35,000 MTs of DAP covered by Contract IV. The value declared by Tata Chemicals was US $ 968 PMT. The goods covered by Contract IV was initially purchased by the appellants at US $ 657 PMT vide Contract II dated 17.12.07, which was through merchandise trade, came to be sold to Tata Chemicals at US $ 968.
2.7 Learned Counsel submitted that a show cause notice dated 13.05.2009 was issued to the appellants proposing to adopt US $ 968/- as the value of the goods imported by the appellants, on the ground that US $ 668.75 declared by the appellants was influenced by the relationship. The Revenue had invoked Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Custom vide order dated 14.09.2009 upheld the aforesaid SCN on the ground that in the related party transaction onus is on the assessee to prove that relationship has not influenced the price.
2.8 On appeal by department, Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal dated 11.03.2011 upheld the aforesaid OIO dated 14.09.2009.
2.9 Learned counsel argued that as per Fertecon Phosphate Report dated 20.12.2007 the prevalent rate during December 2007 was US $ 575-610 PMT plus freight charges. The Appellants entered into the contracts with M/s Mosaic Crop Nutrition LLC, USA on 17th December 2017 for 20,000 MTS at US $ 668.75 PMT and 35,000 MTS at US $ 657 PMT. Thus, it is evident that the agreed upon price was based on international price prevalent at that time. That's the price actually paid for the goods imported by the appellants. It is 4 C/220/2011 further pointed out by Learned Counsel that purchase by Tata Chemicals Ltd. was during the month of March 2008 on spot price. Tata Chemicals Ltd. purchase price was determined basis of on the international price prevalent at that during Month of March 2008. He placed reliance upon various reports evidencing price during the month of January 2008 to April 2008.
2.10 Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Interpretative Notes to Rule 3(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Relevant extract of interpretative notes to Rule 3(3), pertaining to clause (a) is produced below-
2. Rule 3(3)(a) provides that where the buyer and the seller are related, the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined and the transaction value shall be accepted as the value of imported goods provided that the relationship did not influence the price. It is not intended that there should be an examination of the circumstances in all cases where the buyer and seller are related. Such examination will only be required where there are doubts about the acceptability of the price. Where the proper officer of customs has no doubts about the acceptability of the price, it should be accepted without requesting further information from the importer. For example, the proper officer of customs may have previously examined the relationship, or he may already have detailed information concerning the buyer and the seller, and may already be satisfied from such examination or information that the relationship did not influence the price.
3. ......... In this context, the proper officer of customs should be prepared to examine relevant aspects of the transaction, including the way in which the buyer and seller organize their commercial relations and the way in which the price in question was arrived at, in order to determine whether the relationship influenced the price. Where it can be shown that the buyer and seller, although related under the provisions of rule 2(2), buy from and sell to each other as if they were not related, this would demonstrate that the price had not been influenced by the relationship. As an example of this, if the price had been settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry in question or with the way the seller settles prices for sales to buyers who are not related to him, this would demonstrate that the price had not been influenced by the relationship. .......
Learned Counsel claimed that these interpretative notes do apply in the present case and if applied it is established that
a) the related persons buy and sell the goods in the same manner as the un-related parties buy and sell ;
b) the price of the goods sold to related persons as well as to un- related persons is based on the prevailing international market price as reflected in reputed journals 5 C/220/2011 It was therefore submitted that the department has wrongly rejected the transactional value declared by the appellants.
2.11 Learned Counsel also placed Reliance on the case of Bureau Veritas - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 688 (Tri. - Mumbai)(Para 20, 21, 23) which was upheld by Supreme Court (judgment reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.))where it was observed that the transaction value is acceptable in a case of related party transaction if the contract value is determined based on international publications that depicts the volatile price of the product. Further it was also observed that price fluctuation subsequent to contract will not affect the transaction price. He further placed reliance upon judgment of Aggarwal Industries - 2011 (272) ELT 641(para 12) where Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that different prices for the same commodity contracted to be supplied under different contracts entered into at different points of time acceptable even though the goods are imported on the same date. Further, in the case of Intellect Components Co. - 2017 (345) ELT 677(Para 4)it was observed that only if goods are imported at a price significantly different from the price prevalent as per International Journals, then the question on the declared value can be raised on the basis of Prevalent International Price.
2.12 Learned Counsel submitted that in the present case, the transaction value of imported goods is based on the price prevalent in the international market at the time of entering into the contract. On many instances, the appellants have paid duties on the price prevalent at the time of contract, even though, the price prevailing at the time of import of such contracted goods was much lower than the price specified in the contract. Reliance is placed on segment II, III, IV of the Table A produced. Even in such scenario, the duty was paid on the contractual price that was determined based on market price prevalent at the time of contract. Thus, it is evident that the transaction value is at arm's length and that the same has not been influenced by the relationship of the parties. Following data is given by learned Counsel:
Segment Price prevalent Price prevalent at Rate on which at the time of the time of duty was paid Contract import II $1,285 $1,245 $1,283 III $1,265 $910 $1,276 IV $1,056 $588 $1,093 6 C/220/2011 The data showed that the declared and accepted assessable value has always been the value at which contract was entered which corresponded to the value published in international journals at the time of contract. He produced data which showed that the assessable value always corresponded to the value published in international journals at the time of contract, even in cases where the prices published in journals at the time of import were much lower. The above table lists some of the instances.
2.13 It was submitted by learned counsel that once the SVB has ruled that the transactional value is at arms-length under Rule 3 (3) (a) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Valuation Rules of 2007") then the same is binding on the department. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Baxter India Pvt.
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 2019 (7) TMI 777(Para 9-10) wherein it was ruled that once the valuation of goods imported by the related party has been examined and has been accepted as fair price under Rules 3 (3) (a) then Rules (4) to (9) are not applicable and the same cannot be questioned until it is proved that price has been influenced by the relationship. In the present case, the transaction value was based on the international price prevailing at the time of the contract and same was taken into the consideration by the SVB to rule that the contractual value has not been influenced by relationship. However, the department has wrongly overlooked the said order.
2.14 Learned Counsel argued that the observation in para 11 of the SVB order does not mean that the customs department has to reject the transaction value necessarily and resort of other valuation on the basis of identical goods imported into India. Even in such a situation, it is open to the importer- assessee-appellants that in terms of Interpretative Rule 3(3), the value can be accepted and demonstrated that the transaction value has not been influenced by the relationship. In this case, as mentioned above, the related parties have adopted the international prevailing price as reflected in the trade journals, as the basis of arriving at the transaction value. Such an international price is not an influenced price. Hence, the lower authorities are legally not correct in rejecting the transaction value in the present case.
7 C/220/2011 2.14 Learned counsel in his submission also placed reliance on Fretecon Phosphate Report dated 28.08.2008 where KIT imported 400,000 MTS at US $675 PMT from PhosChem US. These goods were imported in batches starting from April 2008. Thus, the imports were made during the same period as the Appellants. Learned counsel brought to the notice that KIT entered into a future agreement with PhosChem on 08.12.2007 for import of 500,000 MTS at US $662 PMT for shipment between February to October 2008. Thus, the import made by KIT is identical to the imports made by the Appellants as the similar future contact was entered during the same period and the imports were also affected during the same period. He, thus, submitted that in case the transaction value of the appellants is not accepted under Rule 3 (3) (a) of Valuation Rules of 2007, then based on Rule 4 (3) of the aforesaid Rules the value of KIT and Phoschem contract needs to be applied in the current situation.
2.15 Learned Counsel pointed out that as stated in appeal, the appellants have paid income tax at the rate of 35% (i.e., more than the customs duties payable) for the sale income accrued to them for the sale made to Mosaic Crop Nutrition (Hongkong) Ltd. This is pointer to show the transparency with which the parties have transacted in the buying and selling of the goods. Further, this type of transaction has been effected by the appellants only in this instant case and no such sale / purchase / sale (i.e., merchandising sale) happened either prior or after this case.
2.16 Learned Counsel argued that as far as the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills[1998 (98) ELT 292], it is submitted that the said decision was rendered in the context of Section 14 as it was existing prior to 1998 and 2007. From Oct., 2007, Section 14 read with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 refer to transaction value. Further, the decision was rendered in Rajkumar Knitting Mills case, in view of the peculiar facts existed therein as the buyer and seller delayed the shipment to India. The decision of the Tribunal in Pushpanjali Silks - 2006 (204) ELT 452 (Para 2) is relied upon wherein the Tribunal had distinguished the decision of Supreme Court in Rajkumar Knitting Mills, on these reasons.
3. Learned Authorised Representative relied on the impugned order. He pointed out that the same bottom cargo of two different importers cannot be assessed at different assessable value. Learned AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India 8 C/220/2011 2009 (235) ELT 193 (SC) to assert that the price printed in the journals are not irrelevant in the absence of contemporaneous imports. He argued that Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out that reliance on said journals is not unreasonable in such circumstances. He also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. vs CC, Kandla 2008 (226) ELT 420 (Tri- Ahd.) to assert that in case of related parties the onus to establish that the price was reduced due to genuine commercial considerations is on the appellant. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay. The relevant date for the purpose of assessment is the date of importation or exportation and not the date of contract.
4. We have considered rival submissions. It is seen that the fact that the appellant M/s Mosaic India Pvt. Ltd. are related to their supplier M/s Mosaic Crop Nutrition LLC, USA is not under dispute. It is also not under dispute that the relationship between the appellant and the foreign supplier namely M/s MCNL, USA has not influenced their transactions in other imports. The peculiar facts in this case are that high sea sales made from the one consignment imported as the same bottom cargo covering two separate contacts, at a much higher price to M/s Tata Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. The flow chart below explains the contracts:
Transaction Details M/s Mosaic India M/s Mosaic India Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd.
35,0000 MTS at 657 PMTs
High sea sales 35,0000 MTS at 657 PMTs
happening on
spot price as
per the
M/s Mosaic Crop
international
rate prevailing
Nutrition (Hong
at that time kong) Limited
(i.e 4th 5th 35,0000 MTS at 966 PMTs
March, 2008
Tata Chemicals
Ltd.
35,0000 MTS at 968 PMTs
9 C/220/2011
The original contract of purchase from M/s MCNLLC, USA was made at 17 December, 2007 and the said consignment was sold on high sea sale basis to MCN (Hongkong) Ltd. on 05/03/2008 at the rate of USD 966/- PMTs. This consignment was further sold on high sea sale basis to M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. at the rate of USD 968/- PMTs on 04/03/2008. M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. cleared the goods by filing Bill of Entry dated 05/04/2008 and declaring the price of goods at USD 968/- PMT. The present dispute relates to second contract made between the appellant and the foreign supplier namely M/s MCNLLC, USA. This consignment consisted of 19581 Mts. of DAP and it was sought to be valued at USD 668.75/- PMT for the purpose of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Revenue is seeking to reject the price declared by the appellant in their BOE dated 03/04/2008 by relying on the contemporaneous import price available in the Bill is Entry dated 05/04/2008 filed by M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. From the above facts, it is apparent that for two consignments supplied by M/s MCNLLC, USA as the same bottom cargo in a single ship. The material against the one contract is being cleared by M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. at a value of USD 968/- PMT vide BOE dated 05/04/2008, and another consignment of identical goods which came as same bottom cargo is sought by assessed by the appellant at 668.75/- PMT.
4.1 Revenue is seeking to rely on sub rule 3 (3)(a) and 3(3)(b)(i) of Rule 3 of Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007.
The said Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007 reads as under:
Rule 3. Determination of the method of valuation-(1) Subject to rule12, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with provisions of rule 10;
(3)(a) Where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price.
(b) In a sale between related persons, the transaction value shall be accepted, whenever the importer demonstrates that the declared value of the goods being valued, closely approximates to one of the following values ascertained at or about the same time.
(i) the transaction value of identical goods, or of similar goods, in sales to unrelated buyers in India;
(ii) the deductive value for identical goods or similar goods;
(iii) the computed value for identical goods or similar goods:
10 C/220/2011 Provided that in applying the values used for comparison, due account shall be taken of demonstrated difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of rule 10 and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not related;
(c) substitute values shall not be established under the provisions of clause (b) of this sub-rule.
(4) if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through rule 4 to
9. The sub rule 3(3) (a) mandates that even if the buyer and seller are related, the transaction will be accepted if the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. In the instant case, the appellant have claimed that their transactions with the foreign supplier have been subjected to detailed examination by SVB and SVB has come to the conclusion that the transaction between them are not influence by relationship and, therefore, the same can be accepted. SVB order no. SVB/CUS/11/PV/2006 dated 22/06/2006 allows acceptance of the declared price only in the circumstance when no contemporaneous imports at higher price are noticed. The SVB order reads as follows:
"8. The importers and the Foreign Suppliers are related as per Rule 2(2) of the Valuation Rules. However, the prices declared by the Importers for assessment of the imported goods to duty are not influenced by the relationship.
9. The prices declared by the Importers in the import invoice in respect of import made from the Foreign Supplier be accepted as Transaction Value in terms of Rule 4(3)(a) of the Valuation Rules for assessment of the imported goods to custom duty after usual checks and scrutiny.
10. All pending assessment be finalized accordingly.
11. If contemporaneous imports at higher prices or payments other that the invoice value by the Importers to the Foreign Suppliers are noticed, the valuation of the imported goods may be done under the appropriate provisions of the Valuation Rules. "
In the instant case, it is seen that the goods imported by M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. which were identical in nature, from the same supplier and the same country of origin imported at the same bottom cargo from the same port have been assessed at a much higher price. Thus, the Revenue is relying on 11 C/220/2011 conditional acceptance of the declared price as per para 11 of the SVB order dated 22/06/2006.
4.2 The argument of the appellant is that though the material has been imported as bottom cargo in a single ship. They had purchased the same on 17/12/2007 for shipment later in terms of their contract with M/s MCNLLC, USA. It has been argued that the material imported by M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. was not purchased by them in the month of December but the same was purchased by Tata Chemicals Ltd. in the month of March, 2008. It has been argued that the international prices prevailing in the month of December, 2007 were approximately corresponded to the price at which they have purchased such goods i.e. USD 668.75/- PMT. He pointed out that even the consignment imported by Tata Chemicals Ltd. was originally purchased by the appellants from M/s MCNLLC (USA) at a rate of 657 PMT. He pointed out that the same was sold on high sea sale basis to M/s MCN (Hongkong) Ltd. in the month of March, 2008. He pointed out that high sea sale price at which they sold the goods to M/s MCN (Hongkong) Ltd. at the rate of USD 966 PMT was the then prevalent international price. He pointed out that even M/s MCN(Hongkong) Ltd. also sold the said goods to M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. at the price USD 968 PMT which also corresponded to the prevailing international price of such goods. The data given by the appellants confirms and the duty has always been paid on the price contracted with supplier and such price always corresponded to the prevailing price in the international journals. The evidence produced suggests that even when the prices published in international journals at the time of import were much lower the appellants paid duty on the contract prices which were much higher than the prevailing international prices. Twenty two such instances were highlights by them along with data.
4.3 The Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Varsha Plastics P Ltd. (supra). The para 21 of the said order reads as follows:
"21. In so far as the reference to PLATT's Price Report or other reputed financial journals which are indicators of international prices for the value of imported goods for the purpose of Section 14(1) is concerned, suffice it to observe that once transaction value is rejected on valid grounds, the Customs Authority has to proceed to determine the value of goods by following Customs Valuation Rules and on the basis of contemporaneous import. However, in the absence of any evidence with regard to contemporaneous import, reference to foreign journals that may indicate the correct international price for the purposes of Section 12 C/220/2011 14 may not be irrelevant and relying upon such journal cannot be said to be altogether unreasonable. As to whether in a given case such foreign journal or for that matter PLATT's Price Report indicate correct international price of the concerned goods for the purpose of Section 14(1) would depend on facts of each case and that would be for the department to establish. The valuation of the imported goods where the transaction value in the opinion of Assessing Authority is liable to be rejected because of invoice manipulation or under-invoicing or un- realistic price or misdeclaration in respect of valuation of goods or description or where transaction value of the goods declared is ridiculously low, which of course the Assessing Authority has to justify, he must proceed to determine valuation of goods by following Customs Valuation Rules. The availability of evidence of contemporaneous import of the same goods obviously provides the best guide for determination of value of the import of goods but in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import, reference to foreign journal for finding out correct international price of imported goods may not be irrelevant because ultimately the Assessing Authority has to determine value of the imported goods, at which such goods are sold or offered for sale in the course of international trade at the time of importation."
It is seen that the utility of the price journals is not in dispute in this case. The dispute is if at the time of contract is not seen as relevant or the price at the time of contract. In the section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, the price at the time of contract is more relevant. Revenue is also seeking to rely on the para 11 of the SVB order. Para 11 reads as follows:
"11. If contemporaneous imports at higher prices or payments other than the invoice value by the importers to the Foreign Suppliers are noticed, the valuation of the imported goods may be done under the appropriate provisions of the Valuation Rules."
It is seen that the para 11 of the SVB order cannot be seen in isolation. The interpretative Rule to the rule 3(3)(a) clearly lays down that "Where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price". We find these circumstances exist in this case and the appellants own imports, other than this, have been assessed on the contract price corresponding to the internationally prevailing prices on the date of contract as reported in international journals.
13 C/220/2011 The Revenue is seeking to rely on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Dow Chemicals International P. Ltd. (supra). The para 6.4 of the said order reads as follows:
6.4 The appellant is closely related to the foreign based related supplier and also their indenting agent. The presumption that such a lower price to the appellant is in view of the relationship is reasonable and it is up to the appellant to have the adduced evidence that there was no reduction due to relationship. They have not been able to explain satisfactorily the reason for the difference in price between supply made to them and another importer. Having received a consignment at the rate of US $ 725 from the foreign based related supplier in August, 2001, they have shown valid reason for import at a lower price in November, 2001.
Theoretically, it is possible that the price can be lower due to fluctuations in the market. But in the light of the relationship between the appellant and the foreign based supplier the onus is on them to prove that the price reduction was on genuine commercial considerations."
The above para clearly says that if the price fluctuation is reasonably explained the same can be accepted. In the instant case cogent reasons have been given along with evidence and post practice details. In these circumstances the decision in the case of Dow Chemicals International P Ltd. (supra) supports the appellants. In these circumstances, we find no reason to reject the declared value. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and appeal allowed.
(Pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2020) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (Raju) Member (Technical) Diksha