LAWS(CE)-2014-1-125

BECKMAN COULTER INDIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Decided On January 30, 2014
Beckman Coulter India Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises from 1 Order -in -Appeal No. MUM -CUSTM -SMP -348 -12 -13, dated June 5, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone 1. Vide the impugned order the learned appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the assessing officer vide the order dated June 18, 2012 wherein it was concluded that the transaction value declared by the appellant, Beckman Coulter India Pvt. Ltd., be accepted inasmuch as the relationship between the appellant and the related foreign principal, has not influenced the price of the goods supplied. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are dealers in medical equipment, parts and accessories and they undertake imports of these goods from their principal M/s. Beckman Coulter Inc., USA. They are related with the foreign supplier and, therefore, the transactions undertaken by them were scrutinised by the Special Valuation Branch attached to the Mumbai Customs House. In the review order dated June 18, 2012 the assessing officer, after going through the material furnished by them, came to the conclusion that though the importer and the supplier are related in terms of rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR for short), the relationship has not influenced the price and, therefore, the transaction value declared by them could be accepted. Aggrieved by the same the Revenue filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority. In their appeal memorandum, the Revenue urged that the importer vide the letter dated June 12, 2012 had declared the value of goods when imports were made by third parties and when imports were made by the appellant and a comparison of these values revealed huge difference between the two values, especially in respect of large number of items imported by the third party enumerated in the impugned order. The assessing officer while passing the impugned order did not consider these differences and had mechanically accepted the transaction value on the basis of the declarations and submissions made by the importer and, therefore, the said order needs to be set aside. In appeal, the lower appellate authority observed that the importer had failed to substantiate their explanation regarding the higher transaction value with respect to imports made by unrelated third parties with any acceptable reasons and relevant/acceptable documentary evidence. Therefore, the lower appellate authority held that the order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable in law and accordingly the order was set aside.

(3.) THE learned Additional Commissioner (authorised representative) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority. However, he fairly concedes that the lower appellate authority has not determined what should be the value that should be adopted for assessment purposes in respect of imports made by the appellant.