2007 (10) TMI 103 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Customs Decision on Imported Goods Assessment

The Tribunal upheld the Deputy Commissioner of Customs' decision to provisionally assess imported capital goods by adding 20% to the declared invoice ... Technical know-how agreement entered into with foreign supplier had no relation with the capital goods imported – Know-how fees is necessary for setting up of factory & same can’t be added to assessable value of imported CG as know-how is not in relation to production of imported CG. Issues:1. Provisional assessment of imported capital goods.2. Inclusion of technical know-how fees in the assessable value.3. Interpretation of the Technical Collaboration Agreement.4. Application of Customs Valuation Rules.5. Applicability of Rule 9(1)(e) regarding payments as a condition of sale.6. Comparison with relevant legal precedents.Issue 1: Provisional Assessment of Imported Capital GoodsThe Deputy Commissioner of Customs in Mumbai had finalized the provisional assessment of imported capital goods by adding 20% to the declared invoice price. This decision was based on the appellant's failure to provide evidence showing that their relationship with the foreign supplier did not influence the declared price. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to an appeal by the appellants.Issue 2: Inclusion of Technical Know-How FeesThe dispute centered around whether the technical know-how fees should be included in the assessable value of the imported capital goods. The Tribunal analyzed the clauses of the agreement to determine the nature of the technical collaboration and concluded that the technical know-how agreement was for the manufacture of precision castings in India, not directly related to the imported capital goods. Citing relevant legal decisions, the Tribunal held that technical know-how fees should not be added to the assessable value.Issue 3: Interpretation of the Technical Collaboration AgreementThe Tribunal scrutinized the clauses of the Technical Collaboration Agreement to ascertain the obligations and rights of the parties involved. It was emphasized that the agreement focused on providing technical know-how for the manufacture of precision castings in India, rather than for the imported capital goods. The interpretation of specific clauses was crucial in determining the scope and purpose of the agreement.Issue 4: Application of Customs Valuation RulesThe Tribunal examined Rule 9(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 to assess whether the technical know-how fees could be considered in the valuation of the imported capital goods. Relying on legal precedents and the language of the rules, the Tribunal concluded that the technical know-how fees were not directly related to the production of the imported goods and therefore should not impact their assessable value.Issue 5: Applicability of Rule 9(1)(e) Regarding PaymentsThe Tribunal deliberated on the applicability of Rule 9(1)(e), which pertains to payments made as a condition of sale of imported goods. By analyzing the agreement clauses and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal determined that the technical know-how fees were not a condition of sale of the imported capital goods, as the appellants had the freedom to procure goods from other suppliers.Issue 6: Comparison with Relevant Legal PrecedentsIn assessing the case, the Tribunal compared and distinguished relevant legal precedents cited by both parties. The Tribunal highlighted distinctions from past judgments to support its decision regarding the inclusion of technical know-how fees in the assessable value of the imported capital goods. By referencing established legal principles, the Tribunal reinforced its interpretation of the case at hand.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind its decision in each aspect of the case.