Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Latest Cases

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (8) TMI 693

..... uppliers and the Appellants are partners of the Joint Venture; as per the agreement the importers and suppliers are partners in business; two employees of the suppliers, that is Metal One Corporation, are nominated as directors of MSSCL. Therefore, we find that as found by the original authority the foreign suppliers and the Appellants are related. The adjudicating authority and the Appellant authority have sought to load the value of imported goods at a flat 8% of profit margin. The original authority has stated to rely on Arcelor Mittal. However, no details have been furnished - the reasons given by the Original Authority for not accepting the same are not satisfactory, as it was not established to the supplier company and had posted high .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... are not related. Learned Counsel further submits that the supplier has procured capital goods manufactured by M/s. Nittetsu Denji Techno Company Ltd Japan and supply to the Appellants including 1% margin; in terms of Rule 11 of Customs Valuation Rules 2007 manufacturers invoice is of great importance; the foreign suppliers is only facilitating the export from Japan and are earning a margin of 1% on the same. As per the ratio of tribunal decision in Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs SVB Chennai 2015 (315) (ELT) 449 (Tri-Chennai) declared profit margin of 1% is acceptable, whereas the original authority has presumed that general profit percentage would be 8% as observed in Arcelor Mittal case. Learned Counsel submits that no .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... l. However, no details have been furnished. As submitted by the Appellants we find that the goods dealt by Arcelor Mittal and the supplier of the Appellants are not same. Under the circumstances loading of 8% is arbitrary. It is on records that for one year the profit margin of the supplier of the Appellants was recorded to be 2.4%. We find that the reasons given by the Original Authority for not accepting the same are not satisfactory, as it was not established to the supplier company and had posted higher profit percentage, if any. Without providing any such data simple rejection of the declared profit margin is not acceptable. Moreover department has not adduced any evidence of any contemporaneous imports so as to indicate under valuatio .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... above facts, we find that the loading of 10% profit margin on the invoice value appears to be on the higher side. We are of the considered view that since the appellant is a STPA unit and also taking into the fact that the imports made by the appellant from the supplier i.e. Google Inc. is only for the purpose of development of software and export and also taking into consideration the principal supplier has not sold these goods to any third party but supplied to their affiliated companies only, loading of a nominal profit of 1% (one percent) on the declared value would be suffice. We find that the circumstances of both the cases are similar and the ratio is applicable. Therefore, we find that loading of value by 1% in respect of imported c .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||