9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g tools such as hobs, broaches, cutters etc. for use as capital goods in its manufacturing operations in India from related persons. Since the suppliers of the Petitioner were related, the issue arose as to whether the relationship between the two had affected the price of goods imported. Since documents were not produced by the Petitioner despite a request by the Department, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed an order dated 24 December 2003 by which he directed that the declared invoice value be enhanced by 25%. The adjudicating authority, however, allowed an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce the documents within a period of three months for finalization of the case. This order was questioned in appeal. The appeal was, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foreign company had influenced the price of the cutting tools imported by the appellants herein, the adjudicating authority has not recorded any finding on the issue which he was required to decide but has added the amount of US $ 20 Lakhs paid/payable as technical know-how fee by the appellants in India to its supplier, under the provision of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. In other words instead of giving any finding on the issue before him as per Tribunal's remand direction viz. on the issue as to whether the relationship had affected the price, he has entirely departed from it by giving a finding on addition of 20 Lakhs US $ by way of technical know-how fee which was not the issue to be decided by him in terms of Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application dated 19 December 2012 for clarification of the order dated 23 February 2007 before the CESTAT on 20 October 2012. The Tribunal by an order dated 29 January 2013 dismissed the application holding that from a plain reading of the order of the Tribunal dated 23 February 2007 it is evident that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 24 June 2006 had attained finality. 5. The order of the Tribunal dated 23 February 2007 held firstly that the issue which was to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner was whether the relationship between the Petitioner and the foreign company had influenced the price of the imports made by the petitioner. The adjudicating authority, as the Tribunal noted, had not recorded any finding on the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had affected the transaction value. In appeal by the Petitioner, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had remanded the proceedings and it was against that order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that the petitioner filed a further appeal before the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal which allows the appeal specifically holds that : (i) the addition of US $ 20 Lakhs was not warranted since it was beyond the scope of the order of remand which had earlier been passed by the Tribunal on 28 June 2004; and (ii) that the department had not challenged the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that no finding had been recorded as to whether the relationship between the parties has influenced the price. Once the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
