Case Law Details
M/s. Voith Turbo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Explains when Substantial mark-up in supply of imported goods to customers when not indicates undervaluation of imports
Considering the nature of business of the appellant/importer and that the overheads involved in the business activity were bound to influence the price at which the imported goods were sold to the Indian customers, CESTAT Mumbai has held that the difference between the declared price at the time of import and the selling price cannot be designated as profit accruing to the importer. The Tribunal also held that the fact that importer/ appellant and the supplier being connected through a common holding company and being related parties, was not sufficient to reject the declared price if there was no evidence that the relationship between the supplier and importer (being related parties) had impacted the conditions of sale.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
In this appeal of M/s Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd against the demand of Rs. 2,05,908/- as duties of customs on imports effected between May 2006 and March 2007 and in 2007-08, the holding of goods valued at Rs. 9,53,860/- as liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,05,908/- under section 1 14A of Customs Act, 1962 in order in-original no. CC/MAK/17/2011-12/ADJ/ACC (I) dated 31st October 2011 of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, the issue pertains to re-determination of assessable value on the ground that the substantial markup in the supply of these goods, as such, to their customers is a pre-arrangement with the supplier, M/s Voith Vertriebeggsellsschaft Antriebstechnik GmbH, Germany, to enable undervaluation with intent to evade duties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
