9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orters of electric decorative lightings. The other two appellants are Directors of the importing company. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the main appellant filed a bill of entry on 21/01/2015 at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi for clearance of electric decorative lightings. The goods were examined and it was found that the import consignments were consisting of goods with brand name "Diyas" and "mAntra". Further enquiries were conducted regarding correct valuation of the goods for customs duty purpose. Verification of documents as well as recording of statements of various connected persons were done by the officers. On completion of enquiry, proceedings were initiated to re-value the current import consignments as well as past consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is summarized in the impugned order and is as below :- "56.4 It is further observed that the value of the imported goods has been re-determined/arrived from sale price of the importer taken from sale invoices by reverse calculation as deductive value as per Rule 7 (1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 readwith Rule 9 of rules ibid. Whereas in case of most of the items sale price had been available from their sale invoices and on being noticing that the sale price of the goods was 2 to 8 times higher than the declared/import value of the goods, therefore, in respect of items where sale price was not available 3 times higher than the declared/import value had been taken as sale price on average ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the allegation that all 21 consignments were imported from related parties is factually incorrect. The imports were from three different sources and only one i.e. M/s Inspired Lighting Ltd., U.K. may be construed as related party. The others are independent entities with no relation whatsoever with importing company. Even the imports from M/s Inspired Lighting Ltd. are comparable with the accepted value of similar goods as available with the Department in NIDB. The relationship did not influence the valuation of the goods ; (b) the goods were subjected to physical examination and due assessment. There was no objection by the officers on this ground in the past clearances ; (c) the methodology adopted in the impugned order for deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not declared with brand name and further, the exporter and importer are related persons as established by the financial control, share holding pattern and flow of money by unsecured loan etc. In such situation, the Original Authority is correct in rejecting the transaction value. The re-assessment has been done following the Rule 7 readwith Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 2007 by backward calculation. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The appellants have mainly contested the methodology adopted for arriving at the value by the lower authority. Regarding the rejection of transaction value though they protested that all the imports are not from related parties there is no strong plea against the finding of rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e import is from three companies of which only one can be considered as related persons. This aspects requires re-verification and a clear finding by the Original Authority. 8. The main dispute in the present case is re-determination of value by the Original Authority. As already recorded in the order hereinabove, the Original Authority followed a backward calculation of deductive method applying Rule 7 (1) of the Valuation Rules, 2007. The said provisions are as below :- "7. Deductive value. - (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 3, if the goods being valued or identical or similar imported goods are sold in India, in the condition as imported at or about the time at which the declaration for determination of value is presented, the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants also. We are not in agreement with the said proposition. It is apparent that different brand names carry different values. It is not practicable to have a comparison of one brand with another for Customs duty purpose. Such determination will be highly subjective. As such, the Original Authority is left with only option of arriving at the correct assessable value by backward calculation, which he did. The second major point contested by the appellant is that postimportation expenditure and profit margin allowed is not correct. We note that the Original Authority considered 15% on account of profit margin, 5% on account of post importation charges. He had also considered and allowed deductions on tax elements attributable to the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
