9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, the value of any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use of the imported goods that accrues directly or indirectly to the seller and, ordered that in view of the foregoing discussion and findings, I hereby reject all the ten appeals claiming a total refund of Rs. 76,718/- filed by M/s. Gupta Chemicals (P) Ltd. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeals. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants filed 10 refund claims on the ground that the subject goods were imported by the canalising agency, M/s. Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (RSAIC) Jaipur and the same were sold to them on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value and thus, higher customs duty was collected and hence, the refunds arose on this account; that the service charges paid to the canalising agency cannot form part of the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been contended in the written submissions that in the invoice issued by M/s. Ciba Geigy Ltd., it was clearly indicated that import was on account of M/s. Gupta Chemicals, the appellant before us; that the same endorsement was repeated in the Yellow Bill of Entry and Bill of Lading; that from these facts, it was clear that from the very beginning, the appellant was in the picture as Importer; that the service charges realised by the canalising agency was in the nature of buying commission which coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of service charges which is nothing but services rendered for buying goods and would not be includible in value. In support of this contention, they have cited and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres v. CC [1997 (89) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.)]. They have also cited the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CC v. M.G.M. International [1998 (99) E.L.T. 284 (T)]. 4. Shri K. Shiv Kumar, the ld. JDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR. We have perused the written submissions. We have also perused the evidence on record and perused the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. We note from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Apo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as provided for in this rule. We observe this refrain in Rule 9(4) is very significant. Due regard has to be given to it while seeking additions to the price actually paid. 6. Looking to the Valuation Rules, we note that Rule 9(1)(d) provides that the basic issue for inclusion of this commission in the invoiced price is whether this is commission and brokerage or it is buying commission. We note that in the instant case, the goods were imported by the canalising agency and the canalising agency was collecting 3% as commission. Since this commission was collected by the canalising agency, it cannot be termed as commission or brokerage if paid by the foreign supplier to the Indian importer or any one acting on its behalf. In the instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
