AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 23.04.2009 once again holding that the importer and the supplier as referred above are related persons and it was ordered to load the declared invoice values of all the imports by the appellants in the following manner. Year Goods for internal use Spare part Capital goods STP unit Equipment for demonstration purposes 2000 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 2001 50% of GPL 50% of GPL 50% of GPL 50% of GPL 2002 48% of GPL 48% of GPL 48% of GPL 48% of GPL 2003 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 2004 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 2005 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 2006 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 2007 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL 46% of GPL The above SVB order dated 23.04.2009 was accepted by the appellant and the department. Based on the above SVB order dated 23.04.2009, the appellant requested for finalisation of the provisional assessments. The original authority vide Order-in-Original No. 694/2014 dated 31.12.2014 finalised the provisional as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 of the SVB order holds that where the declared invoice price is more than the annual selling price to unrelated buyers, the declared invoice price must be adopted. It is claimed by them that the above finding was factually and legally incorrect as the findings in para 17 of the above SVB are irrelevant for the finalisation of Bills of Entry provisionally assessed for the relevant period. It is submitted by them that the present dispute is only regrading import of spares which have been imported at 35% of GPL for the period 2002 since all unrelated buyers were allowed a discount of 52%, the SVB order had enhanced the declared value to 48% of the GPL for the said period. Similarly for the year 2003, the discount allowed to unrelated buyers was 54% and the SVB order enhanced the declared value to 46% of GPL. Therefore, they claim that only for the years other than 2001, 2002 and 2003, the declared value is to be accepted. It is also submitted that the Revenue has not found any instance where the declared value of spare parts is more than the average annual selling price to unrelated buyers. Therefore, they submit that the Commissioner (A) was incorrect in rejecting the findings of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er warranty replacement to the specified customers of the foreign supplier, it is seen that these are only symbolic delivery routed through the Indian subsidiary where bills have been raised to the foreign supplier. In other situations, these symbolic deliveries have been resold to the said supplier. Thus, there appears to be restrictions upon 'Sales' of spares to be supplied to the foreign supplier's customers in India." It was also held that "In view of the above, it is clear that the transaction values cannot be accepted after examining the circumstances of the sale of imported goods, which indicate that the relationship has influenced the prices. But in order to arrive at the correct and fair value that data provided by the appellant in 4 volumes as mentioned above, has to be analysed and verified and adjusted has to be made in the price of the imported goods for the STP unit as the price has to be revised at 46% with the effect from 12.06.2004. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to assess the impugned goods keeping the above facts in mind and verifying the data submitted by the appellant after following the Principles of Natura....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he value of the imports has been determined under Rule 8, provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 shall come into play. Therefore, the price paid by the importer for the goods imported shall form the value of the goods imported. Accordingly, the SVB order of new Delhi vide Para 17 has correctly held "where the declared invoice values of the importer are more than the average annual selling price of the unrelated buyers in India, the same shall be accepted." Thus, I find merit in the Departmental Appeal and consequently, I hold that part of the impugned order granting refund of Rs. 26,57,893/- as incorrect as it is not in consonance with the intent of the SVB order. It is also pertinent to note that when the SVB order New Delhi finalised the valuation applying the Valuation Rules, there is no scope to interpret the language of Para 17 of the Adjudication Authority who himself is a creature of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, I do not concur with the ground of appeal of M/s. Cisco interpreting the language of the SVB Order of New Delhi in the way they have pleaded before this forum, so as to render a contrary opinion than what is intended in the law." 8. From ....