2015 (9) TMI 1256 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - import from the group companies is covered under Sales Promotion Agreements. - price variation between the prices for importer and unrelated buyers - Held that - order of the adjudicating authority woefully inadequate - difference in prices for the respondent and independent buyers is much less than 55% for most of the products. It is not at all brought forth in the adjudication order as to how the verification is taken as 55% uniformly. In fact, the decision of the adjudicating authority is an apology of an Order and is not a speaking Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted this fact that the invoices shown by the appellant during the hearing do not indicate that the difference in price is 55% uniformly. In majority of sales, the price to unrelated buyer was higher by 5.5% to 7.5%. - finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, cost incurred by the seller (in this case respondent) have to be considered while examining the influence on price by the relationship between the supplier and the importer. Therefore, even if similar goods sold to the unrelated buyer are taken as the basis of value of impugned goods in terms of Valuation Rules 4 & 5, adjustments have to be made on account of such factors as stated in proviso to Rule 3 (3) (b) of the Valuation Rules. In any case, the adjudicating authority simply considered the difference in price, which he states wrongly to be 55%, without examining the reasons for the price difference in proper prospective. In case of Metal and Alloys Industries 1989 (1) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI the international prices of the same product imported were considered. However in the present case, the situation is of commission being given which is the difference between the prices to the appellant and the unrelated buyer for taking care of after sales service/promotion etc. We find no reason to reject the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over valuation of imported goods from related suppliers.
2. Allegation of excessive discount and influence of relationship on pricing.
3. Interpretation of Customs Valuation Rules and Sales Promotion Agreement.

Issue 1: Dispute over Valuation of Imported Goods
The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal related to the import of goods from related suppliers. The foreign supplier and the importer were related, and the import was covered under Sales Promotion Agreements. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared invoice value and directed an enhancement based on the value at which identical goods were imported by unrelated buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order citing factual and legal grounds.

Issue 2: Allegation of Excessive Discount and Pricing Influence
The Revenue argued that the 55% discount was abnormal, citing legal precedents. The respondent contended that the price difference was due to a commission paid by the Principal for after-sale services. The Tribunal found the adjudication order inadequate, noting that the price difference was not uniformly 55% as claimed. Commercial practices of providing commissions for sales to unrelated buyers were upheld, and adjustments were deemed necessary considering various factors influencing pricing.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Customs Valuation Rules and Sales Promotion Agreement
The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that factors like commercial levels, quantity levels, and costs incurred by the seller should be considered when evaluating the influence of the relationship between the supplier and importer on pricing. The adjudicating authority failed to follow the Valuation Rules properly and did not provide a legal basis for determining the correct assessable value. Legal precedents cited by the Revenue were deemed inapplicable to the present case, as the situation involved a commission for after-sales services rather than special discounts or international prices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive evaluation of pricing factors and adherence to Customs Valuation Rules. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering commercial practices and relationship dynamics in determining the assessable value of imported goods.