Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1205 - AT - CustomsWhether the first appellate authority has erred in coming to such a conclusion in enhancement of the value holding the supplier and the respondent-assessee as related person is wrong? - Held that - it can be seen from the findings of the first appellate authority that there is no equity participation to the tune as had been recorded by the adjudicating authority. There is absolutely nothing on the record that findings of the first appellate authority were erroneous, we agree with the findings recorded by the first appellate authority that just because there is an equity participation in the importer-respondent company, it cannot be held that importer and supplier are related person - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue-appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Whether the first appellate authority erred in enhancing the value by considering the supplier and the respondent-assessee as related persons. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II. The Revenue also filed a stay petition, which was disposed of along with the appeals on merits. The issue revolved around the conclusion of the first appellate authority regarding the relationship between the supplier and the respondent-assessee. The adjudicating authority had considered them related persons due to 100% equity participation, but the first appellate authority disagreed. The first appellate authority emphasized that equity participation or having Directors on the Board does not establish a relationship influencing the price of imported goods. The department contended that the importer failed to produce necessary documents, leading to the addition of 20% to the value. However, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, citing precedents and finding no error in the first appellate authority's conclusion. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority correctly set aside the enhancement of the imported goods' value by 20%. It was noted that there was no substantial evidence to support the relationship between the importer and the supplier influencing the price. The Tribunal agreed with the first appellate authority's findings that mere equity participation does not establish a relationship between the parties. The decision was supported by legal precedents such as Daewoo Motors India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Modi GBC Ltd., and Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Based on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was legally sound and free from any defects, ultimately rejecting the appeal.
|