Transfer pricing comparability: one support-services company accepted, government-owned and facility-management comparables excluded, forex loss claim...
Adjudication of a customs duty dispute involving the import of cars and the determination of the 'transaction value' u/s 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The key points are: The appellate tribunal found discrepancies and lack of evidence regarding the supplementary invoices raised by the supplier, Bentley Motors Ltd., on the importer, Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. The credibility of these invoices, purportedly adjusting freight and insurance costs, was questioned due to inconsistencies in record-keeping, unavailability of invoices for certain shipments, and lack of proof of payment through banking or informal channels. The tribunal also questioned the reliance on export declarations filed with HMRC (UK) to treat the contract as FOB terms, as these were mere statistical reports without legal consequences. The contract terms between the parties were found to be CIP/DAP, placing the risk liability on the supplier until import into India. Altering the terms to FOB would require evidence of risk liability transfer, which was lacking. The tribunal held that the customs authorities failed to discharge the burden of establishing that freight and insurance were excluded or unascertainable, as required under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Consequently, the enhancement of the declared price by 21.125% to arrive at the 'transaction value' was foun.
Adjudication of a customs duty dispute involving the import of cars and the determination of the 'transaction value' u/s 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The key points are: The appellate tribunal found discrepancies and lack of evidence regarding the supplementary invoices raised by the supplier, Bentley Motors Ltd., on the importer, Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. The credibility of these invoices, purportedly adjusting freight and insurance costs, was questioned due to inconsistencies in record-keeping, unavailability of invoices for certain shipments, and lack of proof of payment through banking or informal channels. The tribunal also questioned the reliance on export declarations filed with HMRC (UK) to treat the contract as FOB terms, as these were mere statistical reports without legal consequences. The contract terms between the parties were found to be CIP/DAP, placing the risk liability on the supplier until import into India. Altering the terms to FOB would require evidence of risk liability transfer, which was lacking. The tribunal held that the customs authorities failed to discharge the burden of establishing that freight and insurance were excluded or unascertainable, as required under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Consequently, the enhancement of the declared price by 21.125% to arrive at the 'transaction value' was foun.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
