2004 (7) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Determining the assessable value of goods imported under the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved the determination of the assessable value of goods imported by a company from Japan. The issue revolved around the application of Customs Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 8 read with Rule 9 (l)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The Tribunal considered the transaction values declared in the invoice and concluded that a 3% loading was necessary based on the enquiry conducted by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai.

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, had upheld the original order and rejected the appeal, leading to the case being brought before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the 50% shareholding by the Japanese company should not automatically influence the price of the imported items. The appellant contended that even in related party transactions, if the price ensures cost recovery plus profit, it demonstrates that the price is not influenced. The appellant highlighted that the payment of royalty of 3% was unrelated to the import of items but was for granting the right to use licenses and technical know-how for manufacturing in India.

However, the Tribunal found that there was no quantification of the duty ordered on the 3% loading, rendering the appeal premature. The Tribunal dismissed the application, suggesting that the appellant could approach the Tribunal once the duty quantification was determined. The judgment emphasized the need for quantification before challenging the duty loading decision, indicating that the appeal was premature in the absence of such quantification.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the determination of assessable value under the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules, focusing on the influence of related party transactions, royalty payments, and the necessity for quantification before appealing duty loading decisions.