9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave also furnished the Chartered Accountant s certificate. Besides these, the entries in the ledger / books of accounts have to be examined. The matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall look into the aspect whether the appellant has paid royalty to the foreign supplier or not. In case, the appellant has not paid such amount, there is no question of including the same in the transaction value. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.41133 of 2019 - Final Order No. 40136 / 2022 - Dated:- 20-4-2022 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Rajaraman, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinue and the order was held to be valid till 3.6.2014. 3. The company by name M/s. Doosan International India Pvt. Ltd., imported skid steer loads compressor, parts and accessories from related supplier viz M/s. Doosan Trading Ltd. Ireland. The SVB examined the value declared and the Deputy Commissioner (SVB) as per Order in Original No. 8046/2008 dated 19.8.2008 accepted the declared price as the transaction value. The issue was again examined and the Commissioner of Customs (SVB) as per Order in Original No. 16063/2011 dated 26.5.2011 held that the pricing pattern has not undergone any change and the transaction value as declared in the invoice was accepted. 4. The company M/s. Doosan International India Pvt. Ltd. subsequently got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 12.7.2018. It was held, in such order, that the royalty amount shown to have been paid in the financial statements during 2012 13 should be added to the invoice value. The appeal filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was rejected upholding the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that merely because the amount of royalty to the tune of ₹ 28.14 lakhs was stated in the financial statements for the year 2012 13, the authorities below have directed to include the said amount as royalty in the invoice value. The authorities below failed to see th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it is not convincible that there was no agreement for payment of royalty. He explained that it is true that the appellant and foreign supplier did not have any agreement. But this cannot be construed that the appellant has made payment of royalty. The financial statements would clearly show that the provision made for payment of royalty was later reversed and not effectuated at all. The royalty proposed to be included in the transaction value has no nexus to the goods imported. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (314) ELT 23 (SC) and Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2014 (314) ELT 473 (Tri.) 8. The learned counsel submitted that though the Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 15. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the financial statements for the respective years. They have also furnished the Chartered Accountant s certificate. Besides these, the entries in the ledger / books of accounts have to be examined. In such circumstances, we deem it fit that the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall look into the aspect whether the appellant has paid royalty to the foreign supplier or not. In case, the appellant has not paid such amount, there is no question of including the same in the transaction value. 12. In the result, the impugned order is set aside to this effect and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall reconsider the issue as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
