TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoicing etc. the said SVB s order is being successively reviewed after every 3 years since 2002 till 2015. From Rule 3 it is apparent that where the buyer and seller are related, transaction value is acceptable for the customs purposes under the provisions of Rule 3 (3) (a) - rule 3 (3) (a) provides that where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. It is not intended that there should be an examination of the circumstances in all cases where the buyer and the seller are related. In this case the valuation of goods imported by M/s. Baxter from the related Companies has been examined number of times since 2002 and it was found that the relationship has not influenced the price, hence the declared value will be accepted under Rule 3 (3) (a). The examination of valuation of goods under subsequent Rules (4) to (9) is not applicable. Rule 3 (3) (a) 3 (3) (b) provide different means of establishing the acceptability of a transaction value - Rule 3 (3) (b) cannot be made applicable while deciding the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, ld. D.R. for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the Department that the case of valuation of imports by M/s.Baxter India Pvt. Ltd. from M/s. Baxter USA, their subsidiaries and associated companies was initially examined vide order No.10/02 dated 29.04.2002 holding that the transactions between the said parties were at arm s-length and dealings were based on commercial transaction only and there has been no influence of relationship on import valuation. The same order got reviewed in the year 2005 vide order No.10 dated 06.12.2005, in 2008 vide order No. 15 dated 05.12.2008, in 2012 vide order No.02 dated 11.04.2012 and in 2015 vide order No.37 dated 19.06.2015. The said orders for assessment of imported goods to customs duties successively have been announced after usual checks and scrutiny. It is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly laid emphasis on Rule 3 (3) (b) of Customs Valuation Rules. The order is also alleged to be non-speaking as far as the expenditure for other expenses as claimed by the respondent importer is concerned. The order is, accordingly, prayed to be set aside and Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. 9. Thus, rule 3 (3) (a) provides that where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. It is not intended that there should be an examination of the circumstances in all cases where the buyer and the seller are related. Such examination will only be required where there are doubts about the acceptability of the price. Where the proper officer of customs has no doubts about the acceptability of the price, it should be accepted without requesting further information from the importer. For example, the proper officer of customs may have previously examined the relationship, or he may already have detailed information concerning the buyer and the seller, and may already be satisfied from such examination or information that the relationship did not influence the price. 10. In this case the valuation of goods imported by M/s. Baxter from the related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approximates to a test value previously accepted by the proper officer of customs and is therefore acceptable under the provisions of Rule 3. Thus, under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Valuation Rules, a responsibility is cast on the importer to prove that their declared invoice values are not influenced by the relationship between the buyer and seller by means of providing evidences in respect of transaction value/deductive value/computed values of imports of identical or similar goods made by other importers and assessed by the department. From the order dated 1-2-2013, I find that the respondents in their reply to SVB questionnaire submitted that the Foreign Supplier does not supply the same goods to other buyers in India and the subject goods are exclusive custom made products as per specifications provided in purchase order. The Foreign Supplier in its declaration also confirmed that they are not selling the same goods to any other buyer in India or in other countries. The respondents in their reply to appeal filed by the department and in their appeal filed before Hon ble CESTAT have stated that they do not have any data in respect of transaction value/deductive value/computed values ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
