Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (3) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rlands would be loaded by 20% for Customs duty assessment. Held that- the impugned order requires to be set aside and we order accordingly. Since the matter is very old and there is no other material on record which will enable application of an alternative method of valuation such as ‘Computed Value Method’ or ‘Deductive Value Method’ at such a distant point of time, we see no reason for ordering a further remand. Hence, we direct that the assessments may be made on the basis of declared value as a practical measure to resolve this decade old dispute. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. - C/345/2003 - 248/2010 - Dated:- 3-3-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) Ms. L. Maithil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocieties Products Nestle S.A. (at the rate of 3.5% of the sales value of the products sold within India and 5% of the F.O.B. value of exports sold outside India), the Deputy Commissioner, SVB, held that such payment is not related to import of POE and hence there is no requirement to add any amount to the value towards royalty and licence fee. 5. The appellants filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who in his order dated 6-11-2001 held that addition of 20% without any supporting evidence was riot correct and he ordered that the Customs value should be determined in accordance with Rule 7A of the Customs Valuation Rules. Against the Order-in-Appeal, both the appellants and the Revenue pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... However, the sales by Nestle Brazil in other countries are again to related buyers only and not to independent buyers since only such related buyers can make use of the specialised product POE on their coffee cans. She also argues that the fees paid by the appellants to the Swiss company is related to coffee manufactured in India and sold in India/exported outside India, and payment of the same is not a condition of the sale of the POE by Nestle Brazil. She further argues that the Com missioner (Appeals) has added 2.7% under Rule 9(1)(d) but there is no warrant for doing so as the POE have been merely used in the manufacture of the coffee cans and it is not anyone's case that the same have been resold or any part of the proceeds have accrue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en related persons, the transaction value shall be accepted, whenever the importer demonstrates that the declared value of the goods being valued, closely approximates to one of the fo1lowing values ascertained at or about the same time- (i) the transaction value of identical goods, or of similar goods, in sates to unrelated buyers in India; (ii) the deductive value for identical goods or similar goods; (iii) the computed value for identical goods or similar goods. Provided that in applying the values used for comparison, due ac count shall be taken of demonstrated difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment, the obligation has been specifically cast on the importers to demonstrate that the relationship has not influenced the price. But the Customs Valuation Rules in force in India do not cast such an obligation specifically on the importers. However, a combined reading of clause (a) and clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 extracted above indicates that the proof of "relationship has not influenced the price" has to be on the importer, otherwise clause (b) would become redundant. Clause (b) provides various ways in which the importer can demonstrate that the declared value closely approximates any of the 'test' values. The importer would be required to so demonstrate only when there is an obligation on him to prove that the relationship .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates