MITTAL INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the Order -in -Appeal No. HKS/949 SVB/2001, dated 21 -11 -2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Issue relates to the valuation of refrigeration equipment imported by the appellant from M/s. Frimont, S.P.A., Italy. The adjudicating authority loaded the declared assessable value of the goods by 15% which was affirmed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The reason given for rejecting the transaction value and for loading 15% rate was that the appellant is an indenting agent of the foreign company M/s. Frimont, the products are offered at the prices and terms established by the foreign company, the appellant company has an indirect operational control over the Indian party and therefore the two are related in terms of Rule 2(2)(v) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. Referring to the terms of the agreement between the parties under which the appellant is receiving commission @ 15% on the amount allowed to the customers and end -users in India. It was held that loading of 15% on the imports made by the party is liable to be made in terms of Rule 9(l)(a) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.

(3.) Attack in this appeal against the above findings are two -fold. Firstly, it is contended that an indenting agent like the appellant cannot be treated as a related person has been already established by a decision of this Tribunal in Polyolefins Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai -2000 (124) E.L.T. 380 (Tribunal). Secondly, it is contended that Rule 9(l)(a) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 has no application in the facts of this case.