TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 25.03.2010 was issued accepting the transaction value for the period valid upto 23.03.2013. Since the above said SVB order is valid only for a period of three years, the appellant had sought renewal of the said SVB order and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, Chennai Custom House vide his Order-in-Original No.20495/2013 dated 21.03.2013 held that the declared value of the appellant shall be accepted as the transaction value in line with the aforesaid earlier order in as much as there is no change in the invoicing and pricing pattern and there are no other payments made by the appellant to the foreign supplier other than for the supply of goods. 1.2 Aggrieved by the above Order-in-Original No. 20495/2013, the Department preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals II), Chennai on the following grounds that : - i. no extraction of LME price to demonstrate invoice price is higher than the LME price. ii. no examination of agreement between the foreign supplier and the LME registered traders. iii. no extraction of relevant data that the Invoice price adopted by their Foreign Supplier is more than the LME price/ price raised b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order which is upheld and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed." iii. He has brought to our attention that the Lower Adjudicating Authority while accepting the declared value also has ordered that if any contemporaneous imports at higher prices are noticed, groups may evaluate the goods under appropriate provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 as done in the Order dated 25.03.2010 also. The Lower Adjudicating Authority in his impugned order dated 21.03.2013 has observed that the field formations have not brought forward during the period of review any material evidence which altered the existing pricing pattern or any other evidence contrary to the importer's declaration to the SVB. As such, in the absence of any evaluation/allegation by the assessing group for the period from 2010 to 2013, it is submitted that there is no requirement to probe the documents pertaining to the transactions between the foreign related supplier and their unrelated suppliers. iv. On the issue of accepting transaction value, the Appellant placed reliance on the following decisions wherein it was held that without cogent evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of noticing any flowback in the form of royalty/technical knowhow fees? 6. We observe that the Original Adjudicating Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, in his OIO has accepted the declared value of the imported goods as the transaction value as the metal price is always determined only on the basis of London Metal Exchange (LME) price in international market and the invoice price adopted by the foreign supplier is more than the LME price / price raised by the LME registered traders. The OIO contained necessary riders/safeguards that if any contemporaneous imports at higher prices are noticed, the assessing group may evaluate the goods under appropriate provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and similar conditions were placed in the first OIO passed by SVB on 25.03.2010 and this OIO dated 25.03.2010 was accepted by the Department for earlier period upto 2013. The field formations have not brought forward during the period of review any material evidence which altered the then existing pricing pattern or any other evidence contrary to the importer's declaration 7. The impugned Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.II No. 51/2014 dated 31.10.2014 in its finding has he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Company that they are importing Aluminium Alloy Billets/Aluminium Ingots for the manufacture of Aluminium Alloy Extruded Products. The foreign supplier is not the manufacturer of the goods but procures the same from the traders in Singapore based on LME price and these goods will be supplied to the Indian company directly from Singapore. The foreign supplier adds service and other charges and raises the invoice to the Indian company. The invoice price of the related foreign supplier is more than the LME Prices. Hence I hold that the relationship between the Indian company and the holding company/foreign supplier do not influence the price of the goods imported. 9. At this juncture, I would like to re-call the portion of Rule 3 (3) (a) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which says "Where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price". 10. The invoice price is based on the LME price at international market. The foreign supplier procures the goods from the traders in Singapore based on the LME prices an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion in force. The imported goods thereafter will be assessed provisionally with Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) equivalent to 1% of the Assessable Value. In case, there is any factual error or omission, the same shall be brought to the notice of this office suomoto by the importer without delay." 8. We have perused the case Laws cited by the Appellant as applicable to this case. In the case of IISINTECH Trading India P. Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 1365 CESTAT NEW DELHI], cited by the Appellant, the facts are similar to the case at hand. The issue relates to investigation by SVB wherein the impugned order was upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. 9. We observe that there is no evidence of higher contemporaneous import prices recorded either in the OIO or the impugned order. Further we find that LME prices cannot be the sacrosanct evidence to substantiate the charge of undervaluation, especially when contemporaneous import of almost same price was available during the material time. The law is well settled in the following cases, that transaction value cannot be rejected, unless there is contemporaneous import prices as evidence to reject the invoice value: - a. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition of law as above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned Order- in-Appeal C.Cus.II No. 51/2014 dated 31.10.2014, for mechanically remanding without cogent reasons could not be sustained and the value declared by the Indian Importer cannot be rejected in view of the detailed examination carried out by the SVB not once but twice that after examining all the invoices and documents as relevant. 12. Further, on going through the impugned order, we find that the objections raised by the appellants are justified. We find that the OIA is very cryptic and does not give any cogent reasons for rejecting the declared assessable value. In the absence of any evidence of contemporaneous import or any other factors that rendered the invoice unacceptable, it is not possible to say that the transaction value was not the correct value acceptable under Section 14 of Customs Act. It would have been a different matter if the Department was able to show by reference to contemporaneous imports, or other evidence that the goods were undervalued. There is however no such evidence placed before us. It is to be noted that the importer has filed his questionnaire, all the invoices and rel....