Valuation of Imported Goods - two conflicting orders reg. Quantum of Loading

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1470

Case: SCHMALZ INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF IMPORT (MUMBAI)

Citation: 2008(232) E.L.T. 147 (Tri-Mumbai)

Issue:- Valuation of Imported Goods – Two conflicting order passed with regard to quantum of loading – orders set aside as no reasons given for fixing quantum in both cases – matter remanded.

Brief Facts:- The Deputy Commissioner by the first Order dated 31-3-2006 rejected the invoice value and ordered for loading the transaction value by 50% for goods imported by the appellants from the related supplier on the grounds that the appellants had failed to submit any contemporaneous imports and also failed to demonstrate that the declared invoice price is true and correct transaction value. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 30-8-2006 set aside the Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2006 with the directions to examine the case afresh.

By the second Order dated 30-3-2007, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the invoice value once again and ordered that the transaction value be loaded by 100% for the goods imported by the appellants from the related supplier again on the grounds of absence of documentary evidences relating to receipt of service charges from the suppliers; non-production of copies of quotation/negotiation/contract/purchase order to justify that the invoice price was a negotiated price; Technology Transfer Agreement required to determine the technical know-how fee/licence fee/lump sum fee.

In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order dated 8-10-2007, confirmed the findings of the Deputy Commissioner and upheld the loading of the goods imported by 100% of the transaction value.

Hence, appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that the two Orders-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner are in conflict with each other in as much as on the very same issue, there are two quantum of loadings. The first Order-in-Original calls for 50% loading, while the second calls for 100% loading. In both the cases, no reasons have been adduced as to justify the quantum of loading.

It was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in not taking into account the above two crucial facts, which form part of the impugned order dated 8-10-2007. In doing so, the impugned order has been passed rather mechanically and bereft of a clear cut finding as to why the case deserved an enhancement of the quantum of loading by 100% as against 50% loading of the transaction value prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner in the first Order-in-Original. It was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined the say of the appellants and if still it was felt that some more records were needed in order to ascertain the facts so as to reach to a conclusion, he could have either himself examined the same or better still, he could have remanded the matter afresh rather than upholding the loading of 100% of the invoice value, which was bereft of any finding.

The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Decision:- Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1470

Comments

Post a Comment

Query