9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of imports based on additional payments to foreign supplier; Mutuality of interest between parties affecting transaction value determination; Correctness of transaction value declared on Bill of Entry; Premature passing of orders by the authorities. Analysis: The appeal concerns the assessment of imports by the appellants, primarily focusing on the relationship with their foreign technical collaborating company and the additional payments specified in the agreement. The dispute revolves around whether the declared transaction value on each Bill of Entry accurately reflects the full consideration for the imported goods, considering the technical know-how fees and royalties payable to the foreign company. The appellants argue that the mere shareholding by the foreign company does not affect the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the absence of mutual interests between the parties. They contend that the order-in-appeal erred in upholding the loading of assessable value based solely on the quantum of shares held. On the other hand, the Revenue argues that the transaction value does not represent the full consideration due to the additional payments required as per the agreement. They highlight the ongoing nature of the royalty payments and the potential risk of revenue loss if the additional sums are not factored into the assessment. The Tribunal observes that the goods are imported subject to the conditions outlined in the agreement, including the payment of technical know-how fees and royalties, indicating a nexus between the imported goods and the final products. While acknowledging the difficulty in quantifying the total royalty payable due to the agreement's duration, the Tribunal agrees with the Revenue that the declared value does not reflect the correct transaction value. The Tribunal concludes that the order-in-appeal, which upheld the loading of assessable value based on shareholding alone, lacks a comprehensive analysis of why the transaction value cannot be accepted. Additionally, they find the original order prematurely passed, as the loading factor provided is an approximation and may not lead to an accurate decision. Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside both orders and remands the matter for a fresh consideration by the original authority. The appellants are to be notified of any proposed loading on the assessable value, allowing them to present their case before a final decision is made. Pending the new assessment, all previous assessments remain provisional, ensuring the continuity of Bonds, Guarantees, and Securities provided by the appellants.
|
