Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.) In a dispute pertaining to determination of the valuation of goods imported by the respondent herein from M/s. Rosemount Inc. USA, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Valuation Bench, Bombay, held that the respondent herein is a related person to M/s. Rosemount Inc. of USA, hence, it assumed that both the said companies are interested in the business of each other and that the prices are not the sole consideration. Therefore, it held that the valuation of the goods imported by the respondent herein from M/s. Rosemount Inc. USA will have to be done under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. The said authority refused to accept the CIF value of the goods imported by the respondent, consequently, it made an addition of 2.4 per cent over and above the CIF value shown by the respondent of the goods imported by it. As stated above, this was done on the basis that the two companies, named hereinabove, had the status of related persons.
(2.) An appeal filed against the said determination by the respondent herein before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, came to be dismissed, upholding the findings of the original authority.
(3.) The aggrieved respondent preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short 'the tribunal') which having reversed the said order of the original and appellate authority, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, is before us in this appeal. The tribunal in this case, relying upon its own judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon [1987(28) ELT 390] came to the conclusion that mere holding of a certain percentage of stock by the foreign collaborator in the Indian company like the respondent herein, was not sufficient to constitute the relationship so as to make the two persons as related persons. It further held that for two parties to be related, it also required the existence of interest by both in the business of each other. On the said basis, it came to the conclusion that mere fact that M/s. Rosemount Inc. USA, had the 40 per cent equity share in the respondent company and had provided technical data base for the manufacture of electronic pressure transmitters ipso facto did not make the two companies related persons. In the absence of any other material, the tribunal held that there was no reason to reject the price declared by the respondent for the purpose of valuation. On the said basis, the tribunal reversed the findings of the authorities below and allowed the appeal of the respondent.;