2016 (4) TMI 397 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods involving transaction between related persons - Applicability of Rule 3(3)(a) of the Valuation Rules - Import of components, spare parts, capital goods etc. from foreign supplier - Valuation to be done by Special Valuation Branch - Held that - the Revenue has not brought forward any material to allege a change in the fact or circumstances as applicable to the past and upheld for the future imports by the Original Authority. Also the Original Authority as well as the first Appellate Authority have examined and gave categorical findings regarding the acceptance of transaction value. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, no ground is found to interfere with the orders of the lower Authorities. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods involving transaction between related persons, applicability of Rule 3 (3) (a) of the Valuation Rules, power of Commissioner (Appeals) to pass interim orders.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by Revenue challenged an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of imported goods between related parties. The Original Authority had accepted the transaction value under Rule 3 (3) (a) of the Valuation Rules after a review. The Revenue contended that the lower Authorities failed to consider the interpretative notes for the said Rule and questioned the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an interim order directing the Department to file a counter within 30 days. The Tribunal noted the main point of contention was the valuation of imported goods between related parties.

2. Both sides were heard, and it was established that the importer/exporter relationship and the general nature of the product remained consistent. The proceedings were a review of an earlier Special Valuation order, which had become final. The Revenue did not provide any material to suggest a change in circumstances, and both the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously accepted the declared invoice value as the transaction value for imported goods. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower Authorities' findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue had not shown any change in facts or circumstances from past to future imports. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the Department to file a counter within 30 days, but as the Revenue did not follow up on this, the Tribunal considered this direction inconsequential. Ultimately, after careful consideration of the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower Authorities and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.