Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Custom Duty

Rejection of transaction value without evidence proving reason influencing price is unjustified

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2022 taxguru.in 5434
Case Name
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co Operative Limited Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement


Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co Operative Limited Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of transaction value is unjustified as department has failed to produce any evidence reflecting that the relationship between the parties has influenced the price.

Facts-

M/s IFFCO and M/s KRIBHCO both are a Multistate Co-operative Society primarily engaged in manufacturing of Fertilizers and distribution of fertilizers. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the imports of Urea by M/s IFFCO and M/s KRIBHCO were taken up for analysis and it was revealed that while the prevailing import price of Urea is around US $ 410 Per MT, Both the appellants are importing Urea from M/s Oman India Fertiliser Company, Oman (in short OMIFCO) at about US $ 160 per MT.

DRI initiated investigation into the imports made by the both assessee during the course of which, it recorded statements of some employees of the assessee. After completing the investigation show cause notices were issued to proposing inter-alia to reject the declared value of imported goods and also to re-determine the same.

In impugned orders the demand of customs duty relates to imports of Urea and Ammonia confirmed alongwith interest and imposing penalty on the Appellants

Conclusion-

Held that it is clear that even if it is assumed that the buyer and seller are related in terms of Rule 2 (2) of valuation Rules, 2007 read with explanation II of said Rule, the price at which the goods were purchased from OMIFCO is the true transaction value and not influenced by their relationship. In the present matter Department has also not produced any evidence to show that the relationship between the parties has influenced the price. Therefore, we find that the reasons for rejecting the transaction value is not in consonance with law and therefore liable to be set aside.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER

These appeals have been filed against orders as enumerated below in the table [hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order(s) or order(s)”] filed by M/s. Indian Farmer Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. ( in short IFFCO) , M/s Krishak bharti Cooperative Ltd. (in short KRIBHCO) and department also. Since the issue involved in all the appeals are same, therefore all the appeals are being taken up together for discussion and disposal.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.