TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... '9 ..... modify the impugned Order-in-Original No.......passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, SVB, New Customs House, Mumbai to the extent that royalty paid by the respondent is addable in the invoice value of the goods imported by the respondent under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Accordingly loading of value on the issue of royalty shall be calculated by the original authority and shall be communicated to the appellant and all other concerned.' has, by overturning finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch (SVB) that their transacted value need not be interfered with, potential of severe detriment to them. The relationship between the parties to a Trade Mark Licence Agreement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tober 2005. 3. Learned Counsel submitted that even after an agreement of November 2006 with M/s Mestra AG, Switzerland for affixing of designated 'trademark' on products from January 2007 and addendum dated 25th January 2007, their application for non-interference with declared value, which drew attention to the 'trademark agreement', was approved on 23rd September 2008 implying continuance of opinion that relationship with supplier had not influenced the price and that the royalty payable under the agreement did not have impact on value for assessment. However, it was the further renewal of 13th October 2011 that came to be assailed at the instance of Commissioner of Customs in appeal filed before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t-paid on import. A proceedings which does not pertain to goods under import or already imported and cleared is not a proceedings acknowledgeable under Customs Act, 1962. Neither Learned Counsel nor Learned Authorised Representative were able to evince notice under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of duty arising from proposed addition to declared value by recourse to rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 or for finalization of assessment under section 18 of Customs Ac, 1962 which, other than section 124 of Customs Act, 1962, should be the requisite framework for adjudication and appellate disposal. On the other hand, the detriment to appellant, such as it is, in the impugned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to delve into jurisdiction that made this legally permissible. We find that the order impugned before the first appellate authority has its origins in a peculiar institution of customs administration, viz., Special Valuation Branch (SVB) or GATT Valuation Cell (GVC), found in some of the older customs houses with specific remit to investigate acceptability of price declared for assessment of goods transacted between related persons. This arises from provisioning in section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 for assessable value to factor in relationship affecting price arrangement in transactions which frailty of human expression could but, in the nascent stage of harmonized approach to valuation, inadequately articulate as the norm or the deviation,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finalization of assessment under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 that devolves on 'proper officer' which Deputy Commissioner, Special Valuation Branch (SVB) evidently is not. As appeal has not been directed before first appellate authority against order of such 'proper officer', it transgresses the remand jurisdiction of such appellate authority to issue directions to a 'proper officer' who has yet to undertake finalization. Direction to the ostensible 'original authority' is nothing but an exercise in futility and direction to the 'proper officer', and the statutorily empowered potential 'original authority', is beyond appellate jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) before whom assessment was not under challenge. 7. In these ....