2021 (1) TMI 1060

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve become their principals in 2007. Before the appellants have become a subsidiary of the foreign supplier, the department have been accepting the pricelists declared by the appellants as transaction value. On the appellant becoming of its subsidiary, the appellant-importer and foreign supplier have become related parties in terms of Rule 2 (2) (i) (iv) and (xi) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Special Valuation Branch (SVB) orders, dated 27.12.2007 and 11.05.2011, were issued holding that there is no change in the pattern of sale and there was no flow back in any manner. These orders were accepted by the Commissioner. In 2015, the appellant approached the SVB in respect of the supplies from M/s. Hanil Interior Co. Ltd., Korea which is als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ples of valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962; it renders the Rules, 4 & 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which deal with contemporaneous imports of identical goods or similar goods, redundant; finding of the appellate authority on Rules 7 & 8 is due to non-application of mind. 2.3 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 3 (3) of CVR 2007 provides that examination of the prices of goods in respect of related party transactions is required only when there are doubts about the applicability of the declared prices; the assessing officer has examined all the aspects involved; it is not open for the appellate authority to entertain a doubt as to whether the declared price was correct or otherwise without citing any ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., I do not find any flow back of cash towards Royalty, Technical Knowhow fee. Therefore, I hold that no addition to the transaction value is warranted under Rule 10 (1) (c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. In view of the above, the pricing adopted by the Foreign Supplier to the Indian Company clearly demonstrates that the sale between the Indian Company and the Foreign Supplier is their true transaction value, as if it is between a buyer and a seller in the normal course of International Trade and the examination of circumstances surrounding the sale clearly indicate that, the relationship has not influenced the Transaction Value. Hence I accept that the pricing of the imported goods are at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Rule 3 (3) of the CVR'2007. The adjudicating authority should have examined the influence of relationship on declared prices in terms of the following procedure prescribed in Rule 3 (3) of CVR'2007 :- (a) Examination of circumstances of sale indicates that relationship has not influenced the price; (b) The importer demonstrates that the declared value closely approximates the test values. In the instant case, the adjudicating authority has not followed any of the above said two ways to examine the influence of relationship on price. If examination of circumstances of sale could not establish that price was not influenced by the relationship, the importer should have been asked to demonstrate that the declared value closely approxima....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ptance of SVB passed by the previous and the current officer-in-charge of SVB were different; whereas earlier SVB considered the affidavit submitted by the appellant, the instant case DC SVB has accepted the valuation on the basis of the price list. Interestingly, Learned Commissioner (Appeals)' finding, that DC SVB has not examined whether such price lists are applicable to the unrelated buyers in other countries in the same commercial level and quantity or applicable exclusively to the imports made by the appellants, goes beyond the grounds raised in review. We find that above averment of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not only farfetched but also beyond the scope of Valuation Rules. In respect of valuation of imported goods, the price....