Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 18 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - various types of Pigments - foreign entity as well as the importer/appellant were related in terms of Rule 2(2)(i), (iv) and (v) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 or not - inter-se relation having any influence on the transaction value of imports, or not - whether the declared transaction price was acceptable, or did it require loading, as proposed, for the reasons discussed in the orders of lower authorities? HELD THAT:- The appellant nowhere denied, and rightly so, that its imports were sourced from its relative entity and accordingly hit by Rule 2(2)(i), (iv) and (v) ibid. wherein “related” is defined. It is most relevant here to ascertain if the value so declared is at arm’s length. Burden is therefore on the appellant to establish that the transaction value declared by it was not influenced by the relationship with its supplier. Though the Learned Advocate contended that the declared value was at arm’s length, we find from the orders of the lower authorities that they have disputed the same. Even before us, other than arguing that their value declared was at arm’s length, no supporting material is placed to dislodge the findings of the lower authorities. If the price declared was at arm’s length, then perhaps there would not be any such long drawn dispute at all - Moreover, from the claim of the appellant that the deductive method of valuation is appropriate, itself suggests that the prices declared were certainly not at arm’s length - the declared value was not at arm’s length. Whether the value was influenced by the relative party transaction, in terms of Rule 4(3)(a) ibid? - HELD THAT:- When such a doubt is expressed by the authority, then the burden is on the appellant to discharge the same, to establish that the transaction value was at arm’s length - there is no dispute as regards the relationship between the appellant and the foreign supplier and hence, we have to read second proviso to sub-section (1) carefully. This is because, it is only provided here, under the second proviso, as to the determination of import value in respect of related party transaction. It also provides, inter alia, power to the Adjudicating Authority to reject the declared value where the proper officer has reasons to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value. Rule 4(3)(b) could be invoked only when the importer demonstrates as to meeting three requirements thereunder. But it is to be noted here that Rule 4(3)(b) does not talk anything when the value is held to be at arm’s length. The Adjudicating Authority has adopted Rule 5 as against which, the appellant urges for the adaptation of Rule 7. It is thus urged by the appellant to violate the sequential Rule and choose the one which perhaps suits it, for which no justifiable reason is advanced. It is not only for jumping the sequence, but also for choosing Rule 7 that proper case has to be made out otherwise, the Adjudicating Authority has to follow the mandate of the Rule 3(ii) ibid, which according to us is perfectly in order. Thus, necessary opportunities were given to the appellant for producing all the evidence based on which the Adjudicating Authority passed a detailed speaking order and consequently, the appellant cannot be heard to say it was not given sufficient opportunities and nor is there any such ground to that effect urged before us. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Appeal dismissed.
|