TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being related company, the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) took up the matter for examination. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner as per Order in Original No. 7731/2008 dated 4.6.2008 held that the price declared was on par with contemporaneous imports made by unrelated buyers and therefore accepted the declared price as the transaction value in terms of Rule 3(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The imports made from 4.6.2008 to 3.6.2011 were finalized accordingly. 2. The appellant made some more imports from China, the supplier being M/s. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. China, a related company. The SVB examined the correctness of the declared value and after considering the imports, passed the Order in Original No. 11272/2010 dated 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he observed that the royalty amount of Rs. 28.14 lakhs shown in the balance sheet for the year 2012 - 13 was net of taxes and not includible in the declared value. The Commissioner of Customs, aggrieved by such order filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and vide Order in Appeal No. 124/2015 dated 30.1.2015 the impugned Order in Original No. 26120/2014 dated 4.6.2014 was set aside and directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter on various issues. He also ordered to collect EDD @ 5% of the value of goods. Against such order, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 42209/2017 dated 20.9.2017 while remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority directed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o establish that the royalty amount of Rs. 28.14 lakhs shown in the balance sheet for the year 2012 - 13 was never paid to the foreign supplier and the book entries made was also reversed later in the financial year 2014 - 15. However, the said evidence was not at all considered by the authorities below. 7. As per letter dated 11.7.2018 sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB), the appellant had furnished the financial statement for the year 2012 - 13 and 2013 - 14 along with the Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 11.10.2017. However, it is observed in the order that the appellant has not produced any concrete evidence to establish that the royalty was not paid to the foreign supplier. It is submitted by the learned counsel t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not paid any royalty to the foreign supplier, it is seen that they have made entries in the books of accounts for the year 2012 - 13 as to the payment of Rs. 28.14 lakhs to the foreign supplier under the heading 'Royalty'. They have not furnished any strong evidence to prove that the said amount has not been paid to the foreign supplier. In any case, the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to look into the documents produced by the appellant as to whether they have actually paid the royalty to the foreign supplier or not. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The issue is whether the amount of Rs. 28.14 lakhs in the nature of payment of royalty can be included in the transaction value and whether it is a condition of sale. ....