Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (8) TMI 693 - AT - Customs


Issues:
Valuation of imported goods based on relationship between buyer and seller, application of Customs Valuation Rules 2007, determination of profit margin for assessable value.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the valuation of imported goods by M/s. Mahindra Steel Service Centre Ltd from M/s. Metal One Corporation, Japan. The Original Authority concluded that the buyer and seller are related, necessitating a 7% increase in assessable value as per Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules 2007. The Commissioner Appeals upheld this decision, leading to an appeal by the Appellant.

The Appellant argued that they are not related to the foreign exporter as the majority stake is held by Mahindra & Mahindra, not the foreign supplier. They contended that the supplier procured capital goods from another company and added a 1% margin, which aligns with Rule 11 of Customs Valuation Rules 2007. The Appellant cited a tribunal decision to support the acceptance of a 1% profit margin, contrasting the Original Authority's 8% assumption based on a different case. They highlighted the department's acceptance of the value of steel coils imported from the same exporter to demonstrate the transaction value's validity.

The department supported the findings of the Original Investigation Officer and Original Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the related nature of the buyer and seller.

Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal found that the buyer and seller were indeed related due to their partnership in a joint venture. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the flat 8% profit margin imposed by the lower authorities, deeming it arbitrary. They noted that the goods dealt by the supplier were different from those in the Arcelor Mittal case used as a reference. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the rejection of the declared profit margin and the absence of data on contemporaneous imports for valuation comparison.

Referencing a previous case involving Google India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the need for a nominal profit element rather than a substantial margin addition. They concluded that a 1% loading on the declared value of the imported capital goods was sufficient, considering the circumstances and purpose of the imports. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was modified to reflect the 1% adjustment in the assessable value of the goods.

In essence, the judgment delves into the intricacies of customs valuation rules, the determination of related parties, and the appropriate profit margin adjustments for imported goods, providing a detailed analysis of each aspect to arrive at a fair and justified decision.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates