9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 407 - AT - CustomsValuation - Importation of certain goods from foreign principals and selling in India Influence of relationship with the supplier on the price Non-production of Price List of unrelated suppliers and not to their 100% subsidiaries - Held that - Price list is one which indicates prices of the goods at which the goods are available to any buyer who is not related to the seller of such goods - In the present case, as is indicated on the price list, the prices are applicable only for Kemper (India) - Goods are not available on such price to unrelated buyers in India or abroad - The importer has not been able to produce any price list of the supplier, which is applicable to unrelated persons (and not to their 100% subsidiaries) - The so called price list meant for Kemper (India), Kemper (China) or Kemper (Japan) is of little utility in determining the issue. The analysis by original authority is purely based upon the balance sheet and profit & loss account - It would have been more appropriate if the original authority would have done analysis as per Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, i.e. starting from sale value in India and working out backward - Without doing any analysis or any data supporting certificate from the supplier, the Assistant Commissioner seems to have concluded about the prices under Rule 8 (or Rule 7A under old Rules) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 It is also noted that the first appellate authority also has not done any analysis but on certain grounds, has only set aside the order of the original authority - Both the orders and remand are set aside - Whole matter remitted back to the original authority for analyzing the data in proper perspective and then come to the conclusion Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues: Customs Valuation Rules interpretation, Related party transaction influence on price, Price list validity for valuation, Proper analysis under Customs Valuation Rules
In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI addressed the issue of customs valuation concerning the import of goods by a subsidiary from its related principals. The appellant, a subsidiary, imported goods from its related principals and sold them in India. The Custom House examined the valuation under the Customs Act, 1962, and Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Deputy Commissioner ordered to accept the invoice price by loading 50% due to the relationship. The appellants appealed, and the matter reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh examination, leading to conflicting orders by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assistant Commissioner accepted the invoice price based on comparisons with prices for similar goods supplied to other subsidiaries. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, noting a mistake in considering domestic price lists and exclusive discounts for related parties. The Tribunal found that the original authority's conclusion was based on Customs Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 4(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. These rules govern valuation in related party transactions. The Tribunal analyzed the price lists provided by the importer and concluded that they were not valid indicators of market prices as they were exclusive to related parties. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a proper analysis under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules and Rule 8 (or Rule 7A under old Rules) to determine the correct valuation method. It criticized the lack of detailed analysis by the authorities and remanded the matter for a thorough reevaluation. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the case to the original authority for a comprehensive analysis in line with Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal directed the original authority to finalize the assessment promptly, emphasizing the importance of following the rules and conducting a detailed valuation analysis. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the significance of proper valuation methods and adherence to the Customs Valuation Rules.
|
