9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate disposal. The order impugned before the first appellate authority has its origins in a peculiar institution of customs administration, viz., Special Valuation Branch (SVB) or GATT Valuation Cell (GVC), found in some of the older customs houses with specific remit to investigate acceptability of price declared for assessment of goods transacted between related persons. This arises from provisioning in section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 for assessable value to factor in relationship affecting price arrangement in transactions which frailty of human expression could but, in the nascent stage of harmonized approach to valuation, inadequately articulate as the norm or the deviation, and as remedies appurtenant thereto, to justify institutionalized support to assessment hierarchy. Furthermore, from the absence of show cause notice, as well as response by or on behalf of appellant about fiscal detriment in proceedings, we may not be wrong in speculating that such imports as may be subject to oversight of Special Valuation Branch (SVB) are, invariably, assessed provisionally for finalization to be undertaken upon completion of ascertainment by Special Valuation Branch (SVB) - As app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her concerned. has, by overturning finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch (SVB) that their transacted value need not be interfered with, potential of severe detriment to them. The relationship between the parties to a Trade Mark Licence Agreement dated 10th November 2006 was the genesis of jurisdiction of the authority concerned though the addition ordered in the impugned proceedings stems from the particular aspect in Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, under the mandate of proviso to section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, for inclusion of certain costs and services in the transaction value of goods which lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of proper officer referred to in section 17 of Customs Act, 1962. We, therefore, proceed to the submission of Learned Counsel and Learned Authorised Representative. 2. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, they, a fully owned subsidiary of M/s Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG, Switzerland, are manufacturers of flow measuring instruments utilizing components required for production which are procured by the parent company and billed to include all other expenses and overhead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress+Hauser and E+H , was payable on the turnover of such goods manufactured in India. It also appears that the actual addition to be made was unknown to first appellate authority even after elapse of over a decade since the royalty agreement was entered into. Impliedly, the direction of the first appellate authority is not relatable to goods under import or under proceedings for recovery of duty short-paid on import. A proceedings which does not pertain to goods under import or already imported and cleared is not a proceedings acknowledgeable under Customs Act, 1962. Neither Learned Counsel nor Learned Authorised Representative were able to evince notice under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of duty arising from proposed addition to declared value by recourse to rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 or for finalization of assessment under section 18 of Customs Ac, 1962 which, other than section 124 of Customs Act, 1962, should be the requisite framework for adjudication and appellate disposal. On the other hand, the detriment to appellant, such as it is, in the impugned order is found to be stemming from, and erected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 or section or section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, empowered to assess and, therefore, not empowered to fasten such enhancement to value in assessment of goods. There is also like lack of competence of the authority, ordered to comply with the direction of the first appellate authority, to assess duty under section 17 of Customs Act, 1962, to finalise assessment upon triggering of the contingency that prompted provisional assessment under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 or to recover duty short-paid under the authority of section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. At best, its advisory competence may draw attention of proper officer without allowing quasi-judicial determination of duty liability or recovery subsequent to clearance for home consumption to be influenced by such opinion. 6. Furthermore, from the absence of show cause notice, as well as response by or on behalf of appellant about fiscal detriment in proceedings, we may not be wrong in speculating that such imports as may be subject to oversight of Special Valuation Branch (SVB) are, invariably, assessed provisionally for finalization to be undertaken upon completion of ascertainment by Special Valuation Branch (SVB). Therefore, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
