Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 192 - CESTAT MUMBAIValuation - rejection of transaction value - related party transaction - whether the relationship between the parent company i.e. the supplier from abroad and their subsidiary company i.e. the respondent herein, has influenced the import price or not? - Revenue also argued that the margin of profit is more than 11% and therefore a further loading of 5% has to be allowed by the authorities below. Held that:- There is no specific reason for the revenue for disregarding the transaction value, other than the suspicion that the profit margin is more than 11%. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence before any of the authorities below in support of its contention. Nor they produced any evidence in that regard. They also did not produce any document about contemporaneous import at a higher price. Whereas the respondent had submitted documents such as the Contract Agreement between the respondent and the foreign supplier which provides a basic idea about the terms of sale and payment, copies of invoices etc. The Adjudicating Authority analysed these documents and accepted the declared value as the transaction value. The Revenue has not brought out any evidence in its appeal to cast any doubt on the genuineness of the documents produced by the respondent before the Adjudicating Authority or first Appellate Authority nor provided any contrary information to about sale/purchase of identical/similar goods at higher prices or any evidence of payment over and above the invoice value. Thus, although the supplier and the respondent were ‘related persons’ for the purpose of Customs Valuation Rules but the relationship between them had not influenced the price - The allegation of the revenue that the margin of profit is more than 11% is without any basis and therefore rejection of transaction value by the revenue cannot be approved. Allegations of mis-declaration of value also cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|