9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfluenced by the relationship and Revenue has not rebutted this contention with any evidence, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the assessments of goods imported by the appellant be assessed at prices declared by them with effect from 31-1-2010 with consequential benefits if any. This order shall act as a bar on ordering provisional assessment of future imports at higher prices based - In favour of assessee - C/9/2012 - C/A/204/2012-Cus.(PB) - Dated:- 27-6-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sandeep Oberoi, Advocate and J.M. Sharma, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. - The appellants are engaged in assembly/manufacture of electric motors, A.C or D.C., single phase or multi-phase. Since the year 2000, the Appellants have been importing Completely Built Units (CBUs) for assembly from M/s. SEW-Eurodrive GmbH Co. in Germany. The appellant company, that is the importer, is a subsidiary of a company which is an associate company of the German Supplier. They had declared the relationship with the supplier and therefore the assessments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assembling motors in India. As years progressed they have indigenized the manufacturing process and now out of the total quantity of imports only about 10% constitute CBU, rest being parts. 6. Further during the year 2000 and a few years later there were imports of CBUs or assembled motors by other buyers in India and there was difference in price billed to the appellant as compared to price billed to other importers and on the basis of the price for such comparable goods imported into India, there was justification for loading of the declared value for the purpose of payment of customs duty. Now they submit that there is no import of comparable goods into India. It is their contention that presently : (a) The average discount to the appellant for CBUs is lower than the discount given by the German supplier to unrelated customers. (b) That average discount to the appellant is at par with the average discount being given by German supplier to unrelated customers. 7. While the appellants submit that there is no justification for loading of value of either the CBUs or parts imported by them from the related company, the appellant had requested during adjudication stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on the earlier SVB orders as contested by the appellant. 8. As already observed, regarding the claim of the appellant regarding changes in imports related to CBU and components, it quintessential that such facts/changes are sufficiently brought out before the competent authority for necessary scrutiny and verification. Further I have not come across any evidence that the learned adjudicating authority had fixed higher assessable value merely based on the admitted fact the German suppliers and the appellant are related persons. Hence the ratio of the given case laws is squarely not applicable in the instant case. 9. Now reverting to the issue of assessment on higher side by the said loading, I find that the claim of the appellant is based on the following factors :- (i) there is change in imports in terms of 90% of imports related to components which are not akin to off the shelf types and were meant for their manufacturing unit; (ii) they also imported 10% of imports related to CBU meant for trading purposes; (iii) There was no favourable change in the existing pricing pattern; (iv) The discount provided was at par with the other importer of simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer to prove that the relationship has not affected the price. In this case the importer submitted evidence to show that the relationship did not affect the price by producing copies of invoices raised by their suppliers to customers in Germany showing that prices and discounts offered to unrelated buyers in Germany are at par with what is offered to the appellants. The adjudicating authority has not examined such evidence. No material has been brought on record to show that the price declared is not the real transaction value. For loading of the value declared for charging customs duty, the best evidence that Revenue can produce is flowback of extra consideration. Since the parties are related parties such evidence may not easily be available. But in such cases evidence of imports at higher prices by unrelated buyers will be good evidence. It is also necessary that the evidence on which Revenue is relying should be disclosed to the importer. This has not been done in this case. The reason that the appellant had agreed to loading of value in the past is not a valid reason to continue to load the value declared. Further we find that the percentage of EDD at 1% is totally arbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
