AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the principal for distribution and sale of Elkem Micro Silica (EMS for short) in South Asia viz., India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc. They have been importing EMS from their principal through different ports and the fact of them being 100% subsidiary of the principal and therefore, being a related person was disclosed to the Customs department Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Mumbai. The SVB allowed the import on the basis of invoice value i.e., transaction value from the year 2000 onwards. However, in respect of certain imports made through Visakhapatnam Port, the concerned Appraising Officers assessed the duty based on higher value on the basis of third party imports by another consumer viz., M/s Vesuvius India Pvt Ltd. The appellant paid th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory provisions under Customs Valuation Rules. He has further argued that when the SVB has already finalized their order holding that the transaction value/ invoice value is acceptable for the purpose of valuation and the same was in effect in respect of some of the imports, ignoring the same even during the currency of the said order is a gross disregard to the order passed by SVB. 3. Learned AR, on the other hand, has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the department was correct rejecting the transaction value and in re-determining the assessable value by relying on certain contemporaneous prices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned, while holding that the invoice value has not been influenced by the relationship, it was also observed that the Appraising Officer may, based on certain fact, reevaluate the value. Further, the observation of the Appraising Officer that appellant agreed for enhancement of unit price is not factually correct as the duty was admittedly paid under protest in support of which, the appellants have submitted certain letters. The Appraising Officer also observed that the discounts allowed by the principal appeared to be typically due to the fact that the importers being sole distributor of the product of the principal in India and that the cost incurred in distribution of product in India appeared to have been factored in working out t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f buyer and the imports are also comparable in terms of quantity and value. Proviso to Rule 3(b), inter alia, provides that 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 and it provides 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 10 and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which the buyer and seller are not related. The appellants have mostly tried to demonstrate that the value adopted as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se in the value. We find that in this case, clearly the adoption of contemporaneous value of the third party is not sustainable with the provisions of the Rules. 8. Therefore, we find that since the SVB has already taken into consideration the declared assessable value being correct i.e., the transaction value has been rightly adopted for discharge of customs duty, the Assessing Officer's reliance on certain observations in the SVB order dt.30.01.2015 is not correct for rejecting the transaction value as it is clearly held that the value declared has not been influenced by the relationship between the appellant and the principal. The SVB has taken into account various factors in the case of related transaction including variations in pri....