2015 (9) TMI 1261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dv., Ms. Disha Jain, Adv., Mr. Aman B. Adv. ORDER The respondent/assessee herein had entered into agreement dated 01.11.1995 with one M/s. Rohm Hass Company (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. R&H"). In this agreement, the assessee was to import the product known as Mencozeb Technical 85 % at US$2.10 per kg., CIF, Mumbai. Large quantities of the aforesaid product were imported by the assessee from M/s. R&H under the said agreement. Agreement also provided that the assessee was to be the sole distributor for the aforesaid product and it was given the task of advertising and promoting the sales of the said product in India. The assessee has been filing the Bill of Entry for the purpose of import duty, disclosing the aforesaid price at US$2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... would show that the assessee was treated as related person of M/s. R&H and for this reason the price at US$2.10 per kg. shown in the invoices was discarded as to be the transaction value. Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported (Goods) Rules, 1988 defined 'related persons' which reads as under: "2(2)For the purpose of these rules, persons shall be deemed to be "related" only if- (i) they are officers or directors of one another's business; (ii) they are legally recognised partners in business; (iii) they are employer and employee; (iv) any person directly or indirectly owns, controls or holds 5 per cent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both of them; (v) one of them d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been controlling the assesee either directly or indirectly. In fact, there was no such allegation in the show cause notice nor any finding in this behalf in the Order-in-Original was rendered by the Commissioner. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue has referred to the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South India Television(P) Ltd.[2007(6) SCC 373]. The law on this aspect is explained in para 11 to 14 of the said judgment, which read as under: "11. On a plain reading of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A), it envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has to be deemed price as referred to in Section 14(1). Therefore, determination of such price has to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Under-valuation has to be proved. If the charge of under-valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the Department wants to allege under-valuation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence. When under-valuation is alleged, the Department has to prove it by evidence or information about comparable imports. For proving under-valuation, if the Department relies on declaration made in ....