2020 (4) TMI 645 - AT - Customs

Valuation - inclusion of royalty in the transaction value - Rule 10 (c) of Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT - It is clear that the proceedings in the present case was initiated consequent to the order in review No. 228/DC/SVB/AK/2012-13 dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai, whereby the Deputy Commissioner ordered for loading of Royalty Amount in the transaction value declared by the appellant. The Said order was appealed against before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-Mumbai-I, who vide order in appeal No. 247-248/MCH/DC/SVB/2013 dated 28.03.2013 upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appellant s appeal. The CESTAT Mumbai disposed of the appeal in SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) MUMBAI 2015 (11) TMI 1504 - CESTAT MUMBAI where by the appellant s appeal was allowed by holding that the invoice value is not required to be loaded by including the Royalty and the order of the Deputy Commissioner GATT valuation Cell was set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Inclusion of royalty in transaction value under Rule 10(c) of Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 for imports.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved the issue of whether royalty charges should be included in the transaction value as per the invoice sale value under Rule 10(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The proceedings were initiated based on an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai, directing the loading of royalty amount in the transaction value declared by the appellant. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-Mumbai-I upheld this order, leading to an appeal before CESTAT-Mumbai. The CESTAT-Mumbai, in its order dated 01.05.2015, allowed the appeal, ruling that the invoice value does not need to be loaded by including royalty, thereby setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order. The Department accepted this decision as no further appeal was filed, establishing that the issue had been settled as per the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, as the issue had already been conclusively addressed by the CESTAT-Mumbai's order dated 01.05.2015. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 28.01.2020.