TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mumbai to Coimbatore. Initially, the appellant was registered with the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) in Mumbai; upon the relocation of the registered office, registration was transferred to the Chennai SVB. The valuation of imports from Zahoransky, Germany, and other global affiliates was investigated by the Special Valuation Branch of Mumbai Customs. The adjudication order determined that the appellant was related to Zahoransky, Germany, however it accepted the invoice value as the transaction value. With the transformation from a joint venture to a wholly owned subsidiary and the shift in jurisdiction to Chennai SVB, further renewal proceedings followed. The Order in Original dated 31 January 2012 affirmed the findings of the previous order. In renewal proceedings, Order in Original No. 35205 dated 19 February 2015 noted that the appellant's related supplier purchased goods, added 65% markup and supplied them to the appellant with a 20% discount. The invoice price, post-discount, was accepted under Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and no addition under Rule 10(1)(c) was deemed necessary. Subsequently, the department reviewed the said order and appealed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamined the transaction and satisfied that the relationship has not influenced the value, for the subsequent years unless there is a change in the pattern of invoicing and pricing the transaction value has to be accepted. The Renewal Order has recorded that the Appellant has stated in the Affidavit that there is no change in the current agreement for supply, in the pattern of invoicing and pricing by their suppliers etc. e) The observation in the Order in Appeal that the Appellant has not included profit in the mark up and only gave mark up towards handling and administration cost and that the Appellant has not clarified whether the related suppliers allowed the same quantity of discount to other unrelated buyers across the world is factually incorrect. The Appellant had given the break-up as well as letter from the foreign supplier confirming that they have same mark-up at delivery of goods for all foreign associates / subsidiaries worldwide. f) The First Appellate Authority has simply rejected the transaction value without any fresh evidence that identical or similar goods were imported by other importers at higher price. It is submitted that the onus to prove that declared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arified as to whether the related supplier allows the same quantity of discount to other unrelated buyers across the world and therefore it implies that the discount is being extended to the Appellant because of the relationship; (v) When there is variance in the model of the goods taken for comparison it cannot be said to be similar and therefore the inference that the invoice price is higher to the imports by others is not correct. She prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 4. We have heard the parties and have carefully gone through the appeals. 5. We find that the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was with regard to the following prayer: PRAYER In view of the above, it is prayed before the Hon'ble Commissioner Appeals to:- (a) set aside the Order-in-Original and to remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority for proper examination of all the records and evidences and (b) pass any such order as deemed fit under law. The operative portion of the impugned order is extracted below: "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case. The impugned order was issued on renewal proceedings. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the respondent's imports. When there is variance in model, the goods taken for comparison cannot be similar. Therefore, the inference that the invoice price of the respondent is higher to the imports by others is not correct. In the circumstances, the impugned order accepting the declared invoice value after 20% discount is not correct and therefore set aside. The declared price has to be loaded to offset the 20% discount. Departmental appeal allowed" 6. We find that the Order-In-Original in this case pertains to imports of goods during 2004. Section 14 of the Customs Act, which provides for valuation of imported goods, read as under, during the relevant period, before its amendment in 2007 14. Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment- (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be- the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation, as the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. (b) In a sale between related persons, the transaction value shall be accepted, whenever the importer demonstrates that the declared value of the goods being valued, closely approximates to one of the following values ascertained at or about the same time- (i) the transaction value of identical goods or similar goods, in sales to unrelated buyers in India; (ii) the deductive value for identical goods or similar goods; (iii) the computed value for identical goods or similar goods.] Provided that in applying the values used for comparison, due account shall be taken of demonstrated difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not related; (c) substitute value shall not be established under the provisions of clause (b) of this sub-rule." 8. Hence the value of such goods for the purposes of assessment was deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER [(2024) 8 SCC 712 / CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3821 OF 2024, Dated: 10.04.2024], has examined the issue of burden of proof. It held: "42. There are however exceptions to the general rule as to the burden of proof as enunciated in Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., in the context of the burden of adducing evidence: (i) when a rebuttable presumption of law exists in favour of a party, the onus is on the other side to rebut it; (ii) when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving it is on him (Section 106). In some cases, the burden of proof is cast by statute on particular parties (Sections 103 and 105)." (emphasis added) As stated above, Rule 3(b) also incorporates a legal requirement that the importer demonstrates that the declared value satisfies the Rule. The burden of proof is hence on the importer, which he has not discharged. 11. We also note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs M/S. Fiat India (P) Ltd. & Anr [2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC)], examined the valuation of goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ordinarily the provisions o....