9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of assessable value of imported goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of using quotations from local agents for valuation. 3. Relevance of the invoice price versus quotations in determining assessable value. 4. Applicability of quantity discounts in valuation. 5. Procedural fairness in obtaining and using evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Assessable Value of Imported Goods: The primary issue is whether the invoice value represents the assessable value of the goods or if the deemed price under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as determined by the lower authorities based on quotations from the authorized representative of the manufacturers, should be the real value. The appellants argued that the invoice value should be accepted as it was based on the prices quoted by the suppliers in the normal course of international trade. They contended there was no evidence of any relationship between the suppliers and the appellants or any additional remittance beyond the invoice value. The Tribunal held that under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, the value for duty assessment is the deemed value as provided in that section. The invoice price, even if genuine, would not represent the value under Section 14(1)(a) if it significantly varies from the price contemplated under the section. 2. Validity of Using Quotations from Local Agents: The appellants contended that quotations from M/s. Usha Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. could not be relied upon as they were not authorized agents for the imported parts. They also argued that the confirmation from M/s. Usha Services that their quotation was based on the official price book of M/s. Honeywell was obtained without giving them an opportunity to contest it. The Tribunal found that M/s. Honeywell had confirmed that M/s. Usha Services were permitted to issue quotations for certain controls, and thus, their quotation based on the official price book could be considered valid. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Sharp Business Machines, which allows the use of quotations for determining assessable value under Section 14. 3. Relevance of Invoice Price versus Quotations: The appellants argued that the invoice price should be accepted as it was based on the supplier's quotation. They cited various case laws to support that quotations alone do not justify rejecting the invoice price. The Tribunal held that the invoice price could be rejected if it significantly varied from the international market price. The quotations from M/s. Usha Services were deemed valid as they were based on the official price book of M/s. Honeywell, and no substantial evidence was provided by the appellants to rebut these quotations. 4. Applicability of Quantity Discounts: The appellants claimed that the 30% discount applied by the lower authorities was arbitrary. The Tribunal noted that quantity discounts typically range between 5% to 10%, and the 30% discount given was reasonable and not arbitrary. 5. Procedural Fairness in Obtaining and Using Evidence: The appellants argued that the confirmation from M/s. Usha Services was obtained without informing them, violating procedural fairness. The Tribunal found that the appellants had the opportunity to contest the evidence but failed to provide any rebuttal. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden was on the appellants to disprove the quotations used by the department. Separate Judgments: - Majority Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the assessable value determined by the lower authorities based on the quotations from M/s. Usha Services. - Dissenting Opinion: The President disagreed, arguing that the invoice value should be accepted as the assessable value, citing that a mere quotation cannot be equated with an invoice and should not form the basis for valuation. Final Order: In view of the majority decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the value assessed at Rs. 4,07,818.00 was upheld.
|
