9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Limited, UK. The appellant also declared that they are subsidiary of M/s. Instron Holdings Limited, UK and not related to M/s. Instron Limited, UK. The issue was referred to SVB. The DC (SVB) in his order dated 29.05.2003, held that the supplier and the appellants are related to each other under Rule 2 (2) (i) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (CVR) and ordered to load the transaction value of spares by 22.66% under Rule 8 of CVR,1988. Against this, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 27.02.2004, upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Vide this Tribunal's Final Order No. 4017/2014 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the supplier has recovered from the third party and it is flows back to the appellants as commission. He submits that the commission received from the supplier is not includible as it is received from the supplier M/s. Instron Limited U.K and not from M/s. Instron Holdings Limited, UK. He submits that the adjudicating authority has held that the commission amount is a flow back from the supplier is not justified. He also submits that even it is considered that the parties are related for determining the value under Section 14, mutuality of interest has to be established. In the present case there is no mutuality of interest expressed by the adjudicating authority or by the appellate authority. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DC (SVB) and whether the commission received from the foreign supplier is to be loaded to the transaction value or otherwise. On perusal of the records, we find that the case was registered by the SVB section of customs for examining the relationship between the importer and the supplier, we find that the appellant is a fully owned subsidiary of M/s. Instron Holdings Limited, UK, whereas, the goods were imported from the supplier M/s. Instron Limited, UK. Based on this, both the lower appellate authority and the appellate authority were concluded that the supplier M/s. Instron Limited, UK and the appellant M/s. Instron India Pvt. Ltd. are related to each other. Whereas the appellant contended before the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; In this regard, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Mittal International Vs. CC, New Delhi (supra) has clearly held that 15% commission received by the importer is not related to the imports made by the appellant but in respect of imports made by third party. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- "4. We find merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. The appellant is an indenting agent of the foreign company working under the terms of Indenting Agent Agreement. In terms of the above agreement the appellant was not receiving the commission of 15% in relation to the imports made by it directly from M/s. Frimont on a principal to principal basis. It is entitled to 15% commission only i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds." In the present case appellant is the buyer. It is not incurring any cost and services. 15% commission is being paid to the appellant by the supplier in respect of imports by other parties from the supplier. In view of the above, the application of the provisions contained under Rule 9(1)(a) is totally misplaced. 6. We do not find any reason to sustain the impugned order. In the result, the order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed." The above Tribunal decision is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the appellants have received 17% commission from the supplier which is not related to the imported goods but for the goods supplied to the third party and the services rendered by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
