Full News
Supreme Court held that the loading of 10% in invoice was unjustified
Supreme Court held that the loading of 10% in invoice was unjustified
Prodelin India (PPIL) was a JV between Prodelin Corporation USA (PC USA) and an individual, for marketing VSAT antennas etc. Dy. Commissioner held that PIPL and PC, USA were related persons and this influenced price of imported goods, and ordered for loading of 10% in invoice value of goods imported from PC, USA. Supreme Court held that there was nothing contrary on record to justify the loading of 10% in invoice.-900314
1. M/s Prodelin India (P) Ltd was a JV between M/s Prodelin Corporation U.S.A. (PC USA) and one Mr. Ashok Mago, for marketing facility for promotion and selling VSAT Antennas etc.
2. Dy. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, held that M/s PIPL, India and M/s PC, USA are relatedpersons in terms of Rules 2(2)(i) and 2(2)(iv) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price ofImported Goods) Rules, 1988 and this relationship had influenced the price of the imported goods, and ordered for loading of 10% in the invoice value of the goods imported from M/s PC, USA.
3. Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) dismissed respondents' appeal.
4. CESTAT allowed the respondents' appeal and set aside the impugned order.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held as under:
5. The appellant had brought on record the considerations for which they had paid fee to M/s PC USA and had nothing to do with the imported goods and M/s PC USA was only supplying the parts of antenna systems and not a complete antenna.
6. Deputy Commissioner he did not controvert the contentions raised by the respondentbefore him but went on to load the assessable value by 10% in terms of rule 9(1)(c).
7. In the absence of anything brought on record contrary to the submissions of therespondent, the nature of technical fee, it is not open for the appellant to justify the loading of 10%in the invoice value ordered by the original authority.
