9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em on 5.6.2000 proposing enhancement of value by 20% as the relationship appeared to have been influenced the price of the goods. It was contended that the respondent is a Joint Venture company in which the foreign collaborator M/s Verbatim Corporation, USA has an equity participation of 40%. In the adjudication, it was held that the respondent is a related person to the foreign company on the basis of 40% equity held by the foreign collaborator. Accordingly, 20% was loaded in the assessable value. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has allowed the appeal of the respondent by setting aside the original order. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Shri S.J. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 195 (Tri-Kol). According to which if the foreign supplier is holding less than 50% equity, the Indian company cannot be held as related person. 4.1 As regards the issue of addition of technical knowhow fee of one lakh US Dollor, he submits that the adjudicating authority has clearly held in the findings that the one lakh US dollor cannot be added to the transaction value. This part of the order was not challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), hence the same attained finality. Now, at this stage, department cannot raise this issue. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that as per Revenue the entire foundation of the case is that the respondent is a related person to the fore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted several judgments in their favour to say that merely because the USA company held 40% of equity in the appellants company it cannot be held to be related. They further submitted that the lower authority has without any evidence of any influence of the foreign collaborator, has erroneously ordered for the value to be enhanced. I find that the lower authority has rejected the transaction value under rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 mainly on the ground that they are related person on account of 40% equity participation and the appellants could not demonstrate the value under rule 4(3)(b). I observe from the judgment cited by the appellant that mere holding of equity in the share capital and having foreign directors on the Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
