2007 (2) TMI 558 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported cutting tools.
2. Relationship between the importers and the foreign company.
3. Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
4. Determination of technical know-how fee.
5. Compliance with Tribunal's remand order.

Analysis:

Valuation of imported cutting tools:
The case involved the importation of cutting tools by the appellants for export purposes. The dispute arose regarding the valuation of these tools due to the relationship between the suppliers and the importers. The Deputy Commissioner initially ordered an increase of 25% in the invoice value, which was later challenged by the appellants.

Relationship between the importers and the foreign company:
The central issue was whether the relationship between the appellants and the foreign company influenced the pricing of the imported goods. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision based on the availability of necessary information and documents. However, the Deputy Commissioner's subsequent order focused on adding a lump sum fee of US$ 20 Lakhs paid to the foreign company, rather than addressing the influence of the relationship on pricing.

Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988:
The Deputy Commissioner's order to add the technical know-how fee to the invoice value under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 was deemed inappropriate by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found fault with the handling of the issue of relationship as per Rule 2 of the Customs Valuation Rules.

Determination of technical know-how fee:
The Deputy Commissioner's order to add the technical know-how fee to the invoice value was challenged by the appellants as not being in line with the Tribunal's remand order. The appellate authority set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and directed a re-examination of all relevant documents to determine the proper valuation.

Compliance with Tribunal's remand order:
The Tribunal found that the Deputy Commissioner did not address the core issue of whether the relationship influenced pricing, as directed by the Tribunal's remand order. As a result, the Deputy Commissioner's order became final in the absence of any challenge by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to have erred in sending back the issue for fresh determination, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order being set aside.