TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Panaji Zonal Office, Goa filed a complaint bearing no T-3/26-Goa/2016 dated 25.10.2018 against M/s Mine scape Minerals Pvt Ltd. (Respondent no.1), having it office at Minescape, M. G. Road, Panaji, Goa-403001; M/s Dinar Tar car Resources (India) Pvt Ltd. (Respondent no.2) having its office at Mine scape, M.G. Road, Panaji, Goa-403001; and Shri Dinar Tar car, resident of Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001 (Respondent no.3) alleging violation of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulations 3, 9 and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000, and Section 42(1) of FEMA, 1999 to the extent of Rs.3,11,68,167/- (by Respondent no.1); Rs.20,00,96,301/- (by Respondent no.2); and Rs. 23,12,64,468/- (by Respondent no. 3), in all, amounting to a total Rs. 46,25,28,936/- 3. The investigation in this case was initiated based on the Show Cause Notice (SCN) bearing no. DRI/MZU/GRU/INV/01/2012 dated 18.08.2015 issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai to M/s Mine scape Minerals Pvt. Ltd and M/s Dinar Tar car Resources (India) Pvt Ltd, Goa (Respondents no. 1 & 2 herein), for evasion of Customs Duty in respect of the export of iron ore to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26.04.2011 MV Jin Bi 39,142 DMT 55.62% 71.90 per DMT CIF 6. At Sl. No.1 of above-mentioned of Table No. 1, iron ore was exported by Respondent no. 2 in vessel named MV Vina lines Brave. In this instance, M/s Dinar Tar car Resources (India) Pvt Ltd had entered into a contract bearing no. DTRIPL/DRAGON/11-12/01 dated 03.05.2011 with M/s Dragon Commodities (HK) Ltd for supply of 50,000 MT of iron ore fines having 55% of Fe content at a price of US$ 130 per Dry Metric Ton (DMT) CIF one main port, China. The said contract, dated 03.05.2011, specified that the base price would be increased by US$ 2.36 per DMT for each 1% Fe content above 55.00%, fraction pro-rata. Accordingly, M/s Dinar Tarcar Resources (India) Pvt Ltd exported 46,644 DMT of iron ore fines by vessel MV Vinalines Brave to M/s Dragon Commodities (HK) Ltd and raised commercial invoice dated 19.05.2011 for an amount of US$ 6182605.28. Certificate of quality dated 18.05.2011 issued by Quality Services and Solutions, Goa certified that the iron fines exported in vessel MV Vinalines Brave was having Fe content of 55.90%. Accordingly, price of the iron ore exported was raised by US$ 2.12 and the price per DMT beca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Indian authorities, while the related overseas company entered into a contract for supply of iron ore of 56% Fe, pre-supposes the definite knowledge that the cargo exported by the Indian company has Fe content of at least 56%. Since, the ultimate buyer, i.e., M/s Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd., Singapore, was issued the commercial invoice showing the Fe content of 56.63%, it was concluded that the Indian Company M/s Dinar Tar car Resources (India) Pvt Ltd deliberately mis-declared the Fe content of the cargo to suppress the actual transaction value/correct value of the export proceeds. It was also noted that the first contract between the related parties was entered on 03.05.2011 whereas the contract between the overseas party and the ultimate buyer was entered on 09.05.2011, which was within a week of signing the first contract, thus showing there could not have been any significant difference in the price of the iron ore cargo exported by the Indian company. However, in this case, the difference was to the extent US$ 6.50 per DMT. This, coupled with the alleged misdeclaration in the Fe content of the iron ore cargo and the fact that the first contract was ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was noted by the respondent that both the Indian company i.e. M/s Dinar Tar car Resources (India) Pvt Ltd as well overseas company M/s Dragon Commodities (HK) Ltd being controlled by Shri Dinar Tar car, there should not have been any difference in the pricing of the iron ore fines as well regarding the Fe content of the iron fines in the first and the second contracts. However, the contract contained different percentage of content of Fe as well as the price per DMT. The Indian company showed the iron exported to be having Fe content of 55.50% whereas its overseas counterpart showed the Fe content to be 56.67%. 13. The Respondent No. 2 entered into contract for supply of iron ore having 55% of Fe content whereas its related overseas company entered into contract for further sale of the same cargo but declaring the Fe content to be of 57%. The Directorate was of the view that this definitely presupposes knowledge on the part of the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent no. 3 that Fe content of the iron ore exported by the Respondent No. 2 was more than 55%. Therefore, stating Fe content to be of 55% was a deliberate mis-declaration by the Respondents Company no.2 in order to lower ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India and not repatriated the full value of the export proceeds in respect of the said 5 shipments. In the interest of brevity, the detailed finding in respect of the remaining transactions are not being dismissed here. The details in respect of the export proceeds not repatriated to India were computed as below: Table No. 2 Sl. No. Name of the Vessel Declared Invoice amount (US &) Actual Invoice amount (US &) Differential Amount (US &) Differential amount (Rs.) 1 MV Vinalise Brave 6162605.28 6474628.16 312022.88 1,37,75,810 2 MV APJ Kais 4588818.56 6243910.93 1655090.37 7,40,65,383 3 MV Port Mouton 3347771.25 3979832.25 632061 2,82,84,729 4 MV Lorentzos 5806655.50 6964898.24 1158242.74 5,13,10,153 5 MV Jin Bi 2814542.10 3517668.61 7033126.51 3,26,60,226 Total 44,60,545.5 20,00,96,301 15. Based on the above analysis, the Directorate concluded that M/s Dinar Tar car Resources (India) Pvt Ltd had not repatriated the amounts totalling US $ 44,60,545.50/- equivalent to Rs. 20,00,96,301/- till date. The Directorate was of the view that the said foreign exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ident in India, then such person shall take all reasonable steps to realize and repatriate to India such foreign exchange within such period and in such manner as may be specified by the Reserve bank. By not taking all the reasonable steps to realize and repatriate the full export value of the goods, the Respondent No. 2 had violated the provisions of Section 8 of FEMA, 1999. 16. From the above, it was seen that the Respondent No. 2 had violated the provisions of Section 7 and Section 8 read with Regulations 3, 9 and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 to the extent of US$ 44,60,545.50/- equivalent to Rs. 20,00,96,301/-. 17. With regard to Respondent No.1, M/s Mine scape Minerals Pvt. Ltd., It was noted that the company deals in export of iron ore from the state of Goa. Shri Dinar Purushottam Tar car and his wife Smt. Manisha Dinar Tar car were the two Directors of M/s Mine scape Minerals Pvt Ltd and Shri Dinar Tar car was the Director since the incorporation of the said company. M/s Mine scape Minerals Pvt Ltd exported two consignments of iron ore to its related overseas entities namely M/s Orient Express Commodities Pte Ltd and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal invoice dated 29.04.2011, actual Fe content was shown to be 55.63% and hence the price of the iron ore was reduced from US$ 130 per DMT CIF to US$ 128.59 per DMT CIF. 20. It was noted that both the Indian company i.e. M/s Mine scape Minerals Pvt Ltd as well as overseas company M/s Dragon Commodities (HK) Ltd are controlled by Shri Dinar Tar car. Further, as both the companies were being controlled by the Respondent no.3, there should not have been any difference in the pricing of the iron ore fines as well as Fe content of the cargo in the contracts signed by the Indian Party and its related overseas party. But the contracts contained different prices for the cargo as well as different percentage of Fe content of the cargo of iron ore fines exported by the Respondent's Company. It was noted that in the contract signed between Respondent's Company and overseas party the Fe content was shown to be 55% while the contract signed between the overseas entities showed the Fe content to be 56%. Moreover, the first contract between the related parties was entered on 01.02.2011 whereas the contract between the overseas party and the ultimate buyer was entered on 28.02.2011 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er DMT for each 1% Fe below 55% up to 54%, fraction pro-rata. Accordingly. M/s Dragon Commodities (HK) Ltd raised a final invoice dated 30.09.2010 on M/s Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd, Singapore for supply of 36,493 DMT of iron ore lumps for an amount of US$ 31,72,285.40. In the said final invoice dated 30.09.2010, actual Fe content was shown to be 54.53% and hence the price of the iron ore was reduced from US$ 88.50 per DMT CIF to US$ 86.9866 per DMT CIF. 23. It was noted that the Indian company i.e. M/s Mine scape Minerals Pvt Ltd as well as the overseas companies, M/s Dragon Commodities (HK) Ltd and M/s Orient Express Commodities Pte Ltd are controlled by Shri Dinar Tar car. Further, as both the companies were being controlled by Respondent no. 3, there should not have been any difference in the pricing of the iron ore fines as well as Fe content of the cargo in the contracts signed by the Indian Party and its related overseas party. But the contracts contained different prices for the cargo as well as different percentage of Fe content of the cargo of iron ore fines exported by the Respondents Company. It was noted that in the contract signed between Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods. In respect of the two shipments detailed in the Table No. 3, the Respondent No. 1 did not furnish the true and correct export value of the iron ore exported by them. The Respondent No. 1, furnished incorrect export value of the iron ore exported by them in violation of Regulation 3(1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000. Regulation 9 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 stipulates that the amount representing the full export value of goods exported should be realized and repatriated to India within twelve months from the date of export. In the matter of export consignments detailed in Table No.3, the full export value is the sale price of the cargo by its related overseas entities. The differential amounts between the final invoice amounts and initial invoice amount, as detailed in Table No. 4, had not been repatriated by the Respondent No. 1, within the stipulated time period thus violating Regulation 9 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000. Regulation 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 mandates ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulations 2000 read with Section 42 (1) of the Act to the extent of US $ 6,74,920.85/- equivalent to Rs.23,11,68,167/- (ii) Section 7 and Section 8 read with Regulations 3, 9 and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 read with Section 42 (1) of the Act to the extent of US$ 44,60,545.50/- equivalent to Rs. 20,00,96,301/-. 27. In furtherance of the investigation, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Panaji Zonal Office, Goa filed a complaint bearing No T-3/26- Goa/2016 dated 25/10/18 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (Additional Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai). Based on the said complaint, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) bearing no T-4/22- B/ADE/WR/2018 dated 31/12/18 to the Respondents. 28. In response to the SCN dated 31.12.2018 issued to the Respondents tendered their replies before the learned adjudicating authority on behalf of Respondent No.1 & 3 and Respondent No. 2 & 3 wherein they gave detailed explanations regarding the business of export of iron ore cargo in huge quantities, the method of fixing the value/price of iron ore cargo etc. It was inter alia explained tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken out of the entire shipment for testing of Fe content, i.e., few kilograms out of the thousand tons at random locations. Also, considering the huge quantity of shipment, the samples taken for testing at the load port and discharge port can have difference in its quality and in turn its Fe content. 33. Further, the notices (respondents before us) submitted that the variation in the Fe content could also be due to the difference in testing technology, testing kits, testing chemicals testing process etc. The difference in Fe content could be due to the evaporation of the water content from the ore during the long sea voyage. In the statement given by the Notice no. 3 on 30.08.2017, he stated that the difference in the Fe content in the sale contract between the Indian party and the overseas buyers and the sale contract between the overseas buyer and the ultimate buyer that the same parcel of iron ore when analysed would be giving different grade analysis at different time due to iron ore due to the nature of the commodity being that the acceptable allowance between two times or different times of analysis is 0.5 and that normally the vessel which is 50000 tonnes in size is lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tested at its own laboratory by the Deputy Chief Chemist. These Reports indicate the Fe content of the export consignment at the load port. It was submitted that in the case of the 9 shipments involved in the present complaint, the Custom's Department had also drawn samples and the same were tested at its own laboratory by the Deputy Chief Chemist. The complaint was silent about the reports of the Deputy Chief Chemist. Further the notices submitted that the increase in the Fe content at the Discharge Port is a consistent phenomenon and the variation could also be due to difference in testing technology, testing skills, testing chemicals, testing process; evaporation of the water content from the ore during the long sea voyage; in a sale contract between the related buyer and the overseas buyer and the overseas buyer and the ultimate buyer, the same parcel of iron ore when analysed would be given different grade analysis at different times due to the nature of the commodity being in bulk, that the acceptable allowance between two times or between different times of analysis is 0.5 and that normally the vessel which is 50,000 tonnes in size is loaded by a contribution plan i.e. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and therefore, the transactions were not at arm's length. It is contended that there was enough evidence available from the documents and test results, which establish existence of deliberate manipulation committed by Respondent No. 3 which amounted to contraventions of the provisions of the FEMA, 1999. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority should have upheld the charges levelled against the respondent on merits and imposed reasonable penalty for the contraventions. The findings of the Authority were perverse, contrary to the facts and the evidence on record and, therefore, deserve to be quashed. The Authority has transgressed its power of discretion in dropping the charges in this case. Based on the above contentions, it is prayed by the respondents that the appeal be allowed and reasonable penalty be imposed upon the respondents. Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent 40. The respondents have strongly opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant Directorate. It is submitted that the respondents exported iron ore to entities based in Hong Kong/Singapore. These entities further exported the said ore to the final buyers. The ED's case is that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contended that this Appellate Tribunal, in Khazana v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2018 SCC Online ATFEMA 22 had quashed the ED proceedings which had similarly emanated solely from a DRI SCN and had been subsequently settled by the Settlement Commission. It was observed as follows: "15.... [The] ED without conducting any independent inquiry has simply on the basis of few documents sent by DRI issued a show cause notice to the appellants for alleged under-valuation of furniture imported thereby alleging violation of the provisions of section 3(b),Exchange Management Act, 1999...read with Section 42(1) of the Act. 16. The show cause notice relied solely on the DRI case which had been settled and closed by the Settlement Commission in 2009 itself. Initiation of proceedings is incorrect when the issue has already been settled by the Settlement Commission... 17. In the light of above, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 06.01.2014 for imposing penalty is accordingly set aside." It is submitted that in this appeal, the ED has conceded that its entire case rests on the DRI's case alone as is evident from para 2 of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 48. Firstly, the ED, has, in a self-serving manner, sought to selectively cherry-picked only some consignments to make its case, while ignoring the majority of the consignments, which would belie its allegation. In other words, although the ED was well-aware of the number of transactions, it has deliberately focussed its attention on only the impugned transactions. It is contended that, for each of the four tables in the ED's Complaint and Appeal, the real picture is as follows: i. The ED has only shown 2 out of 7 transactions in respect of Respondent No. 1. while concealing that the other transactions could not be faulted with ii. The ED has only shown 5 out of 42 transactions in respect of Respondent No.2, while concealing that the other transactions could not be faulted with iii. Lastly, the ED has conveniently failed to disclose that in many cases, the Fe content declared by the foreign entity at the time of further sale, is lower than that which the Respondents had declared at the time of export. This also shows that Fe content is genuinely a factor of testing technology and its moisture content varying during voyage iv. Similarly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Fe content at the load port, and not that of the discharge port. Consequently, findings of the report at the discharge port are irrelevant. Significantly, when the findings of the GAL and the DYCC of the CRCL have themselves not been challenged. 50. It is also reiterated before us that the main plank of the ED's contentions is to show that there is a difference in the values of the Fe (iron ore) content/grade specified in the sale contract and the values declared in the shipping bills with the Customs at the time of export. Iron ore is naturally found in moist condition and is weighed in Wet Metric Ton (WMT) and the same is the weight of ore in natural moist condition. The contract entered between the parties is based on Dry Metric Ton basis (DMT) which is determined by ascertaining the moisture content and treating is as an impurity. The contract amongst others specifies the grade and the quantity (on DMT basis) of the iron ore to be supplied. 51. It is also reiterated that certification of the grade is done by an independent GAL recognised under Sec. 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 after drawing random samples from random locations from e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to even mention the said Reports in its Complaint. More importantly, even in the present appeal it has not controverted the findings of the same - but for a bald assertion that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred in setting aside the Complaint by holding that the Fe content had been declared as per GAL. certificates, and cross-verified by the DYCC from samples drawn randomly in the presence of customs officials. 57. That the Respondents and the first buyers are related parties does not, ipso facto, indicate any wrongdoing by the Respondents. Firstly, the Respondents had duly informed the customs at the time of export that the same was between related-parties. The Customs Valuation Rules themselves provide that in cases of related-parties, the price declared by the exporter would be accepted unless the relationship is found to impact the price. The Customs, after finalising their assessment, found no such thing. Secondly, the Respondents had also duly reported their transactions as being between related parties, and the Transfer Pricing Officer of the Income-Tax Department did not find that there was any requirement for adjustment of prices in relation to these transactions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order suffers from that would necessitate setting aside the same. 61. On the basis of above arguments, the Respondents have prayed that the present appeal filed by the Directorate be dismissed. Analysis and Findings 62. I have given careful consideration to the facts on record and the rival submissions of the parties. In the present case, it is not in doubt that the entire case against the appellants under FEMA, 1999 was initiated based on a Show-Cause Notice dated 18.08.2015 issued by the DRI under the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, it is expressly stated so in Para-2 of the appeal memo filed by the appellant Directorate. Notably, since the passing of the impugned order on 30.12.2019, the Ld. Commissioner of Customs, Panjim has passed an order on 31.12.2020 dropping all the charges against the appellant companies herein under the Customs Act, 1962. The relevant part of the said order of the Ld. Commissioner of Customs which are relevant to the present case against the appellants under FEMA, 1999, are extracted below: "64.5 I find that both the exporters M/s MMPL and M/s DTRIPL have declared in the shipping documents that they are exporting iron ore to their relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion in the Fe content based on tests conducted in the department's own laboratory at the place of export. It is pertinent to note that the final assessment of the 5 shipping bills were also undertaken by the Department based upon the Fe content declared in the original agreements supplied by the exporters vis a vis test reports received from CRCL. The show cause notice, however, claims that these declared Fe contents were misdeclared in order to evade duty. This is based on the discharge port analysis of Fe contents of consignments supplied by related foreign group parties to ultimate buyers. I agree with the contention of the noticee that such a suggestion was not legally possible without nullifying the test reports of the CRCL. In order to appreciate the stand of the exporters it is necessary that the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 needs to be reproduced: "SECTION 14. Valuation of goods (1) For the purposes of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and "Indian currency" have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999)." The provisions as reproduced above, if read holistically would indicate that in any transaction, the terms of the agreement need to be given precedence and the value at the time and place of export as entered between two parties has to be considered for the discharge of duty liability. In the present case, the goods were presented for export and the taxable event is the point when the export goods are cleared for placing on board at the port of loading. It is also to be seen that the provisions of Section 14 specifically mandate for value paid or payable at the time of export. In the present case, the exporters had entered into contracts with related purchasers in Hong Kong and Singapore for the export of the goods of specified Fe content as per specifications agreed by them. These are relevant for assessment in India as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently related purchasers sold the goods to some other foreign purchasers, wherein Fe content was found mentioned higher in the shipping d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he subsequent contracts would amount to gross injustice, it should be mentioned that as per The Export Valuation Rules 2007 even in case of related parties transaction value in required to be accepted unless it is shown that relationship has influenced the value. In SC case Reliance Cellulose Products / Collector of Central Excise Hyderabad dated July 1997, The SC clearly stated "Test import of Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist of the Government, unless demonstrated to be palpably wrong, cannot be lightly brushed aside on the basis of opinion of some private persons obtained by the assessee (Para 17)." 64.7 The Export Valuation Rules, i.e, Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 made under the provisions of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, came into force with effect from 10-10-2007 vide notification 95/2007 Customs (NT) dated 13.09.2007. Rule 3 of the said rules also stipulates that the Transaction Value for export goods shall be accepted even where buyer and seller are related, provided that the relationship did not influence the price of the goods. Where the relationship is found to influence the price, as determined by the proper of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of international transactions reported by the company for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer of Income Tax stating that transactions between the parties do not require any adjustment in the transaction prices. This fact also supports the exporter's contention that their transaction was genuine. 64.9. I also find that the notices have submitted that redetermination of the value in the notice in not based on the Customs Valuation Rules. A different kind of approach was adopted for the same which is impermissible and improper. I have duly considered the same and find that redetermination of value as suggested in not as per the procedure prescribed is the Valuation rules but rather it has adopted a strange method of valuation which as per my considered opinion arises out of suspicion and zest and hence does not pass the test of law. 65. I do not find on record any corroborative evidence which can help prove the allegations in the show cause notice and also find that show cause notice has been issued by an authority which has no jurisdiction hence in view of my discussio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n attention to the following grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant Directorate in the present case which reveal that the entire edifice of the charges against the appellants under FEMA, 1999 was built on the allegations made in the SCN issued by the DRI: "(oo) The Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the charges are supported by the action of the DRI." "(vv) That the Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate the facts and evidence in its totality in this case especially when the charges were supported by the action of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The call of legality and propriety in this case demanded that the facts unearthed during the course of investigation like mis-declaration and suppressing of the actual value of the goods exported by the Respondents should have been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority in this case." "(xx) The Adjudicating Authority therefore, appears to have thrown caution to the winds while ignoring the nuances of the principles of natural justice. It is trite law that the rules of evidence are strictly speaking, not applicable in the adjudication proceedings under FEMA. The dropp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n exporters present provisional invoices at the time of export since prices are to be finally' determined after tests at discharge port or at loading port. Normally the following procedure is followed. (a) When a consignment is entered for export of iron ore, fines or pellets, representative samples are drawn in presence of Customs following the procedure laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standards for drawl or samples of Iron are, fines and Iron ore pellets and sent for testing at CRCL. (b) The declared value of the export goods is scrutinized in relation to the provisional invoice, contract, weight, price, etc., by the proper officer in terms of the provision of Section 14 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of export goods) Rules, 2007 and the Shipping Bills are provisionally assessed under section 18 of the Customs Act. In case of the transaction being declared to be between related parties proceedings governing related party transactions are followed. (c) Upon receipt or the load port test report and discharge port test report, the proper officer compares the two reports with the terms set out in the contract. If the contract contem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (TPO) under the Income-tax Act, 1962 is to determine the arm's length price' in an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction. In response to the above contention, the learned counsel for appellant Directorate contended that the said order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has not been placed on record, and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. Having perused the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Customs dated 31.12.2020 referred to above, however, I find that a reference to the said order of the TPO has been made in para 64.8 which reads as follows: "On the contrary, exporters claimed to have made a detailed representation to the Income Tax Department for determination of arm's length price in respect of international transactions reported by the company for the financial year relevant tot eh assessment year 2012-13. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer of Income Tax stating that transactions between the parties do not require any adjustment in the transaction prices. This fact also supports the exporters contention that their transaction was genuine." 70. From the above, it would appear that even from the I....