Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 445 - CESTAT CHENNAIValuation of goods - Related person - whether the appellants are related persons to the suppliers of imported goods within the scope of Rule 2 (2) (vi) of CVR - Held that:- the appellant and all the 7 subsidiaries group companies are fully owned and controlled by M/s.Ansoldo Signals NV and all the imports are made only from the said group companies and there is no outside translation. Therefore, the transaction between supplier and appellants cannot be at arms length or normal transaction. - their principal holding company decides the corporate policy, design, specification, quality control, marketing, sub-licensing of patent, franchise etc. In view of the above undisputed facts, the appellants and suppliers are related persons - Decided against the assessee. Whether the denial of special discount offered to the supplier and loading of value of the imported goods as per the list price for each of import items in terms of Rule 4(2) of CVR is correct or otherwise - Held that:- it is established beyond doubt that the discounts offered are exclusive discounts only to the appellant who is 100% subsidiary of the principal company. Therefore, the appellant s contention that they are eligible for discount of upto 30% for the transfer price is not acceptable. - the rejection of discount and loading of invoice price to different % for each imports made from their related suppliers is liable to be upheld. - Decided against the assessee. Whether the addition of lump sum fee and royalty paid to value of goods in terms of Rule 9 (1) (c) of CVR is correct or otherwise - Held that:- Supreme Court in the case of CC (Prev.) Ahmedabad Vs ESSAR Gujarat Ltd. [1996 (11) TMI 426 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] clearly held that Technical Knowhow and lump sum shall be includible in the value of imported goods - The ratio of the Apex Court decision is squarely applicable to the present case as the technical knowhow, lump sum payment, royalty are part of condition of executing the contract with Railways and certainly it is a condition of sale of imported Microlock-II components to the appellant falls within Rule 9 (1) (c) of CVR and includible in the invoice price of imported goods. - the lump sum fee, royalty paid to U.S.S.CSEE are includible in the invoice value. - Decided against the assessee. Whether the loading ordered for previous imports of 1999 to 2002 based on price list of 2002 is valid or otherwise. - Held that:- We are surprised to know that the appellant being a multinational company knowing the legal requirements failed to disclose the facts before importation nor filed any declaration on the related party transactions and imported goods from 1999 to 2001 which are mandatory requirement for assessment and clearance of goods but chose to suppress the above facts and paid customs duty on the declared value. It is abundantly clear that but for the department's efforts, this could not have been brought to light. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that since the appellants had suppressed the facts of their related party transaction the adjudicating authority had rightly ordered for determination of value of all the imports made in 1999 to 2001 based on the Transfer price list of 2002. - Decided against the assessee.
|