Customs cannot modify transaction value using CRCL test reports when buyer-seller agreement specifies CIQ reports

CESTAT Hyderabad held that Customs cannot modify transaction value based on CRCL test reports when buyer-seller agreement specifies CIQ test reports as determinant. The tribunal ruled CRCL reports irrelevant to transaction value determination unless required for specific Customs purposes like determining goods' nature or exemption eligibility. Additionally, USD 10 per MT commission paid by buyer to agent cannot be added as additional consideration for sale to export price. If additional consideration exists, proper procedure requires rejecting transaction value and redetermining under sequential rules, not adding amounts. Appeal allowed favoring exporter.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Modification of transaction value based on test reports.
2. Addition of extra commission as additional consideration for sale.

Summary:

Modification of Transaction Value Based on Test Reports:

The appeals involved the determination of the value of iron ore fines exported by The Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd. The exporter argued that the transaction value should be based on the test report of CIQ as per the agreement with the buyer, while the Department insisted on using the Chemical Examiner of CRCL's test report. The Tribunal held that the transaction value is the price negotiated and agreed upon by the buyer and seller and cannot be altered by Customs officers. The impugned order re-determining the transaction value based on the CRCL test report was found to be incorrect and unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs officers have no right to modify the conditions of the contract between the buyer and seller.

Addition of Extra Commission as Additional Consideration for Sale:

The Department also added an amount of US$ 10 per MT paid by the overseas buyer to M/s. Reliance, Hong Kong, as an additional consideration for sale. The Tribunal noted that according to the Customs Export Valuation Rules, commissions paid cannot be added to the value of the goods for export valuation. The proper course for the officer would have been to reject the transaction value and re-determine it under the relevant rules if the price was not the sole consideration for sale. Therefore, the addition of US$ 10 per MT as additional consideration for sale was not permissible.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal answered both questions in favor of the appellants, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs to the assessee.

---