2015 (12) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Valuation - SVB has accepted the invoice price as transaction value - no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made - importer/ respondent and the foreign supplier were related under Rule 2(2) of CVR - Held that - AC(SVB) in his order after examining the agreements and documents and CA certificate accepted the invoice price as transaction value. When the Revenue initially reviewed the said OIO, we find that there is only one ground on which the Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the adjudicating authority has not compared the value of contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing his order. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that para 6 & 7 of clearly dealt the issue in detail and concluded that both for the raw material as well as for the pressing machine there is no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made. - Revenue coming to the Tribunal against new grounds is not maintainable. We find that it is the Revenue who preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication (SVB) order. Nothing prevented the Revenue to raise any number of grounds when the department reviewed the OIO and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). This is the case of SVB order and not confirmation of demand of customs duty under Section 28 of the Act. The adjudicating authority had only determined the relationship between the appellant and supplier and whether any remittance made by the respondent to the principal supplier and whether the invoice price is influenced by the relationship. When the goods are customised as clearly recorded in the OIO as well as in the impugned order, the comparison of contemporaneous imports of similar goods or identical goods does not arise. Moreover, we also find that the validity of the said SVB order had expired in the month of May, 2015 and due for renewal by the authority - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Revenue.
- Valuation of imported goods related to the principal supplier.
- Contemporaneous import of similar goods.
- Grounds raised by the Revenue and Respondent.
- Examination of new grounds before the Tribunal.
- Validity of the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) order.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the valuation of imported goods from a related principal supplier. The assessing group found a relationship between the importer and the foreign supplier under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Special Valuation Branch (SVB) accepted the transaction value as per the invoice price. The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority did not compare with contemporaneous imports of similar goods before passing the order.

2. The Revenue argued that the appellate authority did not consider the valuation concerning contemporaneous imports of similar goods, focusing only on identical goods. They highlighted that the imported pressing machines were not manufactured by the principal company but procured from various manufacturers. The Respondent, on the other hand, emphasized that the SVB order accepted the transaction value after examining agreements and documents.

3. The Respondent contended that the pressing machines were procured and supplied to them, being both new and second-hand. They pointed out that the department's appeal was solely based on the comparison of contemporaneous imports, which the Commissioner (Appeals) had already examined and rejected. The Respondent argued that the new grounds raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal were not raised at the lower appellate levels.

4. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could not introduce new grounds before the Tribunal that were not raised before the adjudicating authority or the lower appellate authority. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant grounds at the appropriate stages of appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order as the SVB order had expired and the goods were customized, making the comparison of contemporaneous imports irrelevant.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal clarified that the case revolved around the SVB order and not the confirmation of customs duty demand. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to challenge the impugned order, given the expiration of the SVB order and the customized nature of the goods.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order.