2015 (5) TMI 696 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court clarifies Customs Valuation Rules on post-import services for capital goods

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Versus M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Versus M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. - 2015 (320) E.L.T. 42 (SC) Issues:1. Customs valuation of imported capital goods under various agreements.Analysis:In the first case, the respondent, engaged in copper manufacturing, imported capital goods for setting up a smelter plant. The Customs Authorities disputed the valuation, wanting to include payments from multiple agreements in the invoice price. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs held that only the equipment for the sulphuric acid plant should be loaded per the Customs Valuation Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, adding fees from other agreements to the invoice price. However, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal, stating that fees from the agreements were not related to the import of capital goods. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT decision, citing a previous judgment and emphasizing that the services under the agreements were post-import and not part of the goods' value.In the second case, similar issues arose with agreements between the assessee and another company for the supply of equipment and services. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, contrary to the CESTAT decision in the first case. The Supreme Court, referencing the same judgment, reversed the Tribunal's decision, aligning with the CESTAT's rationale that the agreements pertained to post-import services and should not be included in the valuation of the imported goods. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's orders.These judgments clarify the application of Customs Valuation Rules in cases involving imported capital goods and multiple agreements, emphasizing that post-import services should not be loaded into the value of the goods.