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

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (3) TMI 1034

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... who is the subsidiaries, as is the appellant, of M/s. American Home Products Corporation. The value declared in each of these consignment which consists three kilos of the product is US $ 45,000/- i.e., US $ 15,000/- per kilo CIF. The Custom House did not accept the value declared on the ground that in the same month, M/s. German Remedies imported the same commodity from Germany origin, at DM 36795/- per kilo CIF. The Custom House found that the goods imported by the appellant were in fact of German original and thus concluded that goods identical to those imported by the appellant had been declared at half the price of the same goods imported by M/s. German Remedies. Custom House also cited imports made in June, 1994 to September, 1994 by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection 105 of the Act. Hence this appeal. 4. The advocate for the appellant reiterates substantially the same contention as was raised before the Collector. The Collector s view, that the transaction value could not be accepted for the reason that supplier of the goods and the appellant are related, cannot be sustained in the absence of charge in the show cause notice, has to be accepted. The notice did not cite any relationship between the buyer and seller as a reason for not accepting the transaction value. The only reason cited for enhancing the value is the import of identical goods by M/s. German Remedies at about the same time. the reference in the notice to an order of the Assistant Collector, Special Valuation Branch, apparently h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... act produced by the same person i.e., Schering GmbH. The advocate for the appellant did not draw a clear distinction between identical goods as defined in the rules and acceptability of the value of identical goods for the purpose of rule 5. This rule provides that subject to the provisions of rule 3, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of identical goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued. Sub-rules (b) and (c) provide that the transaction value of identical goods in a sale at the same commercial level and substantially the same quantity as the goods being valued shall be used to determine the value of imported goods; where no such sale is found, the value of ide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommercial level, but is for substantially different quantities, three kilos and one kilo. Each consignment imported by the appellant was three times the quantity of each of the consignments imported by M/s. German Remedies. 9. We are unable to place much reliance on the affidavit, affirmed by Michael Price, Manager WAII. It is cited in support of the contention that the lower price available to the appellant is on account of the large quantity imported by WAII of the product from Germany for distribution to various associated companies. We can understand the rationale behind this claim but in the absence of evidence, the contents of the affidavit are not acceptable. Thus evidence of the price at which the goods were supplied to WAII has n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and at different quantities. Note 2 provides that in such cases adjustment will be made for quantity factors, commercial level factors or for both. Rule 4 also provides that the conditions for adjustment is that such adjustment be made on the basis of demonstrated evidence that clearly establishes the reasonableness and accuracy of the adjustment, for which examples are given. In the normal course when the department does not accept the value claimed it is up to the department to provide evidence to substantiate its proposal for enhancement of the value. The provisions of note 1 of rule 5 provide that the proper officers shall use a sale of identical goods is a crystalisation of this principle. Since it is the proper officer who used the sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates