9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 2. Inclusion of engineering design cost in the value of imported goods. 3. Limitation period for review application under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 1: Valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988: The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Asstt. Commissioner initially held that the relationship between the importer and the foreign supplier did not influence the import price. He concluded that the payment made for technical know-how did not form part of the transaction value for the imported equipment. The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reviewed this decision and proposed the rejection of the transaction value, arguing that the value of engineering design should be added to the assessed value of the goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original decision, stating that the technical know-how fees were not related to the manufacture or sale of the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the buyer had not supplied any goods or services to the supplier and that the technical documents were not provided by the buyer. Therefore, Rule 9(1)(b)(IV) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 was deemed inapplicable. Issue 2: Inclusion of engineering design cost in the value of imported goods: The department argued that the engineering design cost should be added to the value of the imported goods, as the basic engineering design was developed outside India and supplied to the importer at a cost. The departmental representative contended that since the engineering design was obtained at a cost, it should be included in the assessable value of the goods. However, the respondents countered this argument by stating that the engineering design was not necessary for the production of the imported goods but for the manufacture of acrylic fiber in India. They highlighted clauses in the agreement that demonstrated the design was not provided for the production of the imported equipment. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the department's appeal, emphasizing that the engineering design was not used in the production of the imported goods. Issue 3: Limitation period for review application under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962: The Tribunal addressed the issue of the limitation period for review applications under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents argued that the review application filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation. They cited a previous Tribunal decision and the language of Section 129D to support their contention. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, holding that the review application was indeed beyond the prescribed one-year period from the date of the decision of the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the impugned order resulting from the review application as non est and set it aside, ultimately rejecting the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai highlights the key issues surrounding the valuation of imported goods, the inclusion of engineering design costs, and the limitation period for review applications under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
