TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to produce any evidence before any of the authorities below in support of its contention. Nor they produced any evidence in that regard. They also did not produce any document about contemporaneous import at a higher price. Whereas the respondent had submitted documents such as the Contract Agreement between the respondent and the foreign supplier which provides a basic idea about the terms of sale and payment, copies of invoices etc. The Adjudicating Authority analysed these documents and accepted the declared value as the transaction value. The Revenue has not brought out any evidence in its appeal to cast any doubt on the genuineness of the documents produced by the respondent before the Adjudicating Authority or first Appellate Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent herein, has influenced the import price or not and whether the department is justified in rejecting the transaction value? 3. We have heard ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue and the General Manager (Finance) appearing for the respondent and perused the record. 4. Although the respondent has produced the documents to show that the parent company had added 11% profit to the cost price and there are invoices to show that the purchase price of the goods supplied by the parent company is less than the price on which the same was sold by them to the respondent but still it is the case of the department that the relationship has influenced the price. The main thrust of argument of Revenue is that it is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can t be changed during the contract period. As per the terms of contract, if it is necessary to change the contract toolings or buy additional toolings, only then it is possible to change the contract price by mutual agreement. The goods supplied by the parent company to the respondent are the capital goods used in the manufacture of final product i.e. chasis designed by them. These goods can t be used by any other manufacturer. The goods supplied by the parent company to the respondent are purchased goods (i.e. not manufactured by supplier) and the copies of supplier s purchase invoices were also produced by the respondent before the adjudicating authority. The parent/supplier company had added 11% profit to the cost price/purchase pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 535849 Front Bush Fitt hg M/C Hanshin Machinery Co. 1 CKKD10222 26930 24237 Ball Joint Assembly M/C Hanshin Machinery Co. 1 CKKD10222 25816 23234 Rear Bush Assembly M/C Hanshin Machinery Co. 1 CKKD10222 20347 18312 Projection Welder M/C Weltop Technos Corporation 2 CKKD10222 35482 31934 6. There is no dispute that the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importer has influenced the price. As per the invoices produced by the respondent before the Adjudicating Authority, the goods were supplied by the parent company to the respondent by adding a margin of profit of 11% and the said goods were thereafter sold by the respondent to General Motors by adding 2% to the price to cover their expenses. This was only a one time import. According to the scheme of valuation under the Customs Act, 1962, and in particular as per Section 14, the transaction value is required to be accepted for assessment purposes except in circumstances, outlined in Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Where the buyer and seller are related, assessable value of the impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his was a one time import. Hence the circumstances terms revealed that the relationship has not influenced the price as the transaction is at arm s length. I therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and departmental appeal is dismissed. 7. We have also gone through the order of this Tribunal in the instant matter in the application for stay filed by the revenue. This Tribunal vide order dated 11.2.2013 while dismissing the application for stay filed by the revenue recorded as under:- Revenue has filed the application for stay of operation of the impugned order on the premise that the margin of profit arrived at by the respondents at the rate of 11% is not justified. 2. Heard both sides. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
