Half-hearted revamp of SVB

Sir,
It is a privilege to read your article on the SVB procedure.
I have one doubt as to your observation - under the new procedure, appraising groups have been asked to decide on cases involving royalty, license fee and flow back i.e. for costs & services under clause (c), (d) & (e) of CRV sub –rule (1) of rule 10 . In my understanding this prerogative appears still vest with the SVB – in the given scheme of things:
Firstly, as per para 2 of the earlier circular 11/2001 – such instances were mostly mandated to be examined by the SVB. In the new circular while the related data points are featuring in Annex A there is no clear direction for the concerned groups to deal with such aspects. In juxtaposition, for costs and services as per clause (a) & (b) of the even sub-rule is clearly mandated (in para 4.2) as not to be referred to SVB.
Secondly, as per para 5.4, whereby the Commissioner is to exercise his discretion – in matters which does not merit investigations by SVB on the basis of enquires to be conducted by the proper officer appears restricted to such cases - where the value can reasonably be determined following different valuation methods of rules 4 to 9 ; and / or the transaction is possible to be assessed in terms of rule 3 and may not intent to cover the adjustment part (as per rule 10) while rule 3 is otherwise comprehensive.
And most importantly, as per para 8.3, the SVB is to quantity the influence on transaction value due to relationship or payment towards royalty or license fees or other payment actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods. It therefore, appears that SVB is to give its IR for such costs involving royalty, license, flow back on a standalone basis even in transactions where related parties are not in strict sense involved.
Seek your valued feedback on this.

Atul Suraiya 23/02/2016