2016 (5) TMI 188 - AT - Customs

Determination of assessable value of goods imported - Agent agreement between the respondent and its associates - Adjudicating authority held that the value of the goods which are imported by the respondent needs to be loaded by an amount paid as commission to them. Revenue submitted that identical goods from the same supplier was charged higher price and relied upon Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules. Also there cannot be two different prices/value for identical goods which are imported at or about the same time. Held that - it is seen that Revenue is not able to dislodge the factual finding of the first appellate authority. Also it is recorded that the first appellate authority has considered the entire facts of the case and also considered the case laws relied upon by the respondent-assessee and came to a conclusion that loading of the value is not sustainable. Therefore, the grounds of appeal do not contradict by evidence against the findings of the first appellate authority and the impugned order is upheld as correct and legal. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues: Loading of value on goods imported by the respondent-assessee from their Associate Companies.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The issue revolved around loading the value on goods imported by the respondent from their associates to determine the assessable value. The adjudicating authority considered the agent agreement between the respondent and its associates, concluding that the value of imported goods needed to include the commission paid. The first appellate authority, however, set aside the original order, favoring the respondent-assessee.

2. The Departmental Representative argued for loading the commission received by the respondent in the value of imported goods, citing mutuality of interest between the supplier and the importer. The representative highlighted the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing the need for a single price for identical goods imported around the same time. The records revealed that the issue centered on loading the value on goods imported by the respondent from their associates, with the first appellate authority providing detailed findings on why the loading of value was not justified.

3. The first appellate authority's findings were based on the appellant's admission that the commission received was not separately indicated by the supplier, indicating a buyer's commission. The authority considered evidence submitted by the appellant, including invoices showing comparable prices for supplies made to other customers and contemporaneous imports. The lower authority failed to challenge the evidence submitted, nor did it establish that the relationship between the importer and the supplier influenced the transaction value. Legal precedents were cited to support the conclusion that loading the commission on the value of imported goods was not warranted.

4. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, noting that the Revenue failed to dislodge the factual findings. It was established that the impugned order was correct and legal, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The grounds of appeal did not provide evidence contradicting the first appellate authority's findings, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal pronounced the operative portion of the order in open court, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent-assessee.