2017 (1) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Valuation - 100% subsidiary - related party transaction - enhancement in the value by 120% on the ground that supplier and the respondent are related person the value charged by the supplier to the third party supply was 120% more than the value charged to the present appellant - Held that - the Ld. Commissioner has with proper application of mind addressed the issue not only considering the fact of aspect of commission but also on law point - the appellants which is acting both as distributor and the indenting agent and third parties in India importing directly from the supplier both stand at different footing and not at the same commercial level. The lower authority has taken three invoices of third parties for comparison with that of-for the appellants. As per him the third party invoice price on average works out about 120% more than the price of the identical goods imported by the appellants. It is found that taking the price of the third party as bench mark as done by the lower authority in the first item case the discount for the appellant comes to 23.3% and in the second item case it comes to 22.3%. for the third items no item number has been mentioned hence it is a matter of question whether they are identical. The findings of the lower authority appears to be factually incorrect. Enhancement of value by lower authority is set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Enhancement of value of imported goods based on relationship between supplier and importer, comparison of prices with third-party imports, legality of distributor price versus third-party import price.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that allowed the appeal of the respondent, who imported Hot Runner Systems Parts assembled in Injection Moulds. The Deputy Commissioner enhanced the value by 120% due to the relationship between the supplier and the respondent. The revenue argued that the enhancement was justified based on higher prices of third-party imports. However, the respondent contended that as a wholesale distributor, their import price differs from third-party import prices due to distributor commissions, citing various judgments to support their stance.

The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments of both parties and found that the enhancement of value by 120% solely based on higher third-party import prices was not justified. It was noted that the respondent imported goods at distributor list prices and received commissions, which indicated a distinct pricing structure for distributors compared to independent importers. The Tribunal emphasized that distributor prices and third-party import prices should be treated separately, as supported by the judgments cited by the respondent.

The impugned order by the Commissioner was found to be well-reasoned, addressing both factual and legal aspects of the case. The Commissioner's findings highlighted the commercial distinctions between distributor imports and third-party imports, emphasizing that the commission received by the distributor should not be added to the import price. The Tribunal agreed with these findings and concluded that no enhancement of value was warranted in the present case, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the distinct pricing dynamics between distributor imports and third-party imports. The judgment provides clarity on the legality of enhancing import values based on comparisons with unrelated third-party imports, affirming the importance of considering distributor commissions and pricing agreements in such cases.