Customs – Valuation - Export of Iron ore fines – Meaning of ‘Transaction value’ – Validity of redetermining the transaction value based on test report – the Department of the view that the contract price entered into by the appellant with overseas buyer should be determined as per the test report of the Chemical Examiner of CRCL instead of the test report of CIQ, China – Demand of differential export duty – whether the transaction value between the buyer and seller be modified by the Customs based on the test report of the chemical examiner of CRCL – HELD - Transaction value is the price paid or payable by the importer (buyer) to the exporter (seller) as a consideration for the goods which are exported. It is negotiated and agreed to by them in the contract. Nobody else, including the Customs officers have any role in deciding the transaction value because they are strangers to the contract - In this case, the transaction value as per the agreement has an adjustment clause which provided that the value shall be re-determined as per the test report of CIQ. The Customs officers cannot change this transaction value or the stipulation of the test report of CIQ being the basis of the transaction value. The report of Chemical examiner, CRCL is irrelevant to the transaction value - the impugned order re-determining the transaction value based on the CRCL test report is not correct and cannot be sustained - the question in favour of the exporter-appellant - impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed - Export Valuation – Includability of Commissions paid for the purpose of determining the value in case of exports – HELD - As is evident from the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 and the Export Valuation Rules, unlike in case of import valuation, Commissions paid cannot be added for the purpose of determining the value in case of exports even if it was paid by the exporter - Revenue is of the view that the amount paid by the buyer to the agent is an additional consideration for sale as this amount which was to be paid by the exporter was, instead paid by the importer and thereby the transaction value was reduced. Therefore, according to the Revenue, price was not the sole consideration for sale in this case - If, indeed, the price was not the sole consideration for sale, the transaction value can be rejected under Rule 8 of the Export Valuation Rules and then, it must be re-determined sequentially through Rules 4 to 6. But none of these Rules provide for addition of an amount as additional consideration for sale. Therefore, Commission amount cannot be added as additional consideration for sale to the export price. If there was additional consideration for sale, the proper course would have been to the officer to reject the transaction value and re-determine the value under Rule 4 or Rule 5 or Rule 6 sequentially – answered in favour of the appellants and against the Revenue.

Quick Search


Create Account

Log In

Forgot Password

Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page