2024 (2) TMI 777 - AT - Customs

Valuation - inclusion of royalty / technical know-how to the transaction value - requirement for revision of the transaction value or not - the invoice value accepted as the transaction value - case of Revenue is that that the original authority has not conducted sufficient investigation or any verification of documents and has merely relied upon earlier order of the Tribunal to accept the transaction value - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - On perusal of the grounds of appeal, it is seen that apart from the vague submission that the original authority did not conduct any thorough verification there is no specific grounds raised that there is undervaluation. There is no material pointed out to show that that the price quoted for similar goods as per NIDB data or contemporaneous imports is higher or different from the value adopted by the respondent. The argument in regard to amendment of Rule 10 is also not material to be considered for the reason that for the disputed period (2010-2013) the respondent has not paid any royalty or technical know-how fee. Therefore, the amendment has no bearing to decide the issue as to whether the transaction value accepted by the department is proper. The appeal filed by the department is without any merits. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue to be decided is whether the order passed by the original authority that the transaction value can be accepted for the period 2010-2013 is legal and proper.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Original Authority's Decision on Transaction Value:
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB) held that there is no requirement for revision of the transaction value and accepted the invoice value as the transaction value. The Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the decision. The Department argued that the original authority did not ascertain the correctness of the value by examining the circumstances of sale or verifying NIDB data. The Department contended that the original authority blindly relied on a previous Tribunal order which is not applicable to the disputed period of 2010-2013. The Department requested a remand for further consideration. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal lacked merit as there was no evidence of undervaluation presented by the Department.

Issue 2 - Inclusion of Royalty and Technical Know-How Fee:
The respondent, engaged in manufacturing clutches and clutch assembly, imported raw materials for their goods. The respondent had not paid any royalty or technical know-how fee to the overseas supplier for the period 2010-2013. The Department argued for inclusion based on previous orders, but the Tribunal noted that the amendment to the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, regarding royalty/technical know-how fees did not apply in this case. The Tribunal found that the respondent had provided necessary documents and there was no evidence of undervaluation. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal as it lacked merit, finding that the transaction value accepted by the original authority for the period 2010-2013 was legal and proper.