TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules technical know-how fee not subject to Customs duty</h1> <h3>HOSUR INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> HOSUR INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 492 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:- Appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.- Technical know-how fee payment considered for Customs duty.- Addition of technical know-how fee to the invoice value of imported goods.- Appeal against 20% loading ordered by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB).- Examination of License Agreement between the assessee and the UK company.- Nexus between technical know-how fee and imported components.- Applicability of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.- Decision based on similar cases.- Lack of reasoning in the Revenue's appeal.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the payment of a technical know-how fee for Customs duty. The assessee imported components from the UK for manufacturing measuring instruments and obtained technical know-how for the same. The Customs authorities added the technical know-how fee to the invoice value of the imported goods. The Commissioner upheld this decision but set aside the 20% loading ordered by the SVB for 'other imports.' The assessee appealed against the technical know-how fee addition, while the Revenue appealed against the set-aside loading.2. The Tribunal examined the License Agreement between the assessee and the UK company to determine the relationship between the technical know-how fee and the imported components. It was found that the fee was related to 'CONTRACT MATERIAL,' i.e., measuring equipment to be manufactured in India using the technical know-how. The agreement did not stipulate the fee as a condition for importing components. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal held that Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules was not applicable as there was no nexus between the fee and the imported goods. Therefore, the assessee's appeal against the technical know-how fee addition was allowed.3. Regarding the Revenue's appeal for the 20% loading on 'other imports,' the Tribunal noted a lack of reasoning or basis for the plea in the appeal. Neither the appellate Commissioner's order nor the Revenue's appeal provided any explanation. Due to the absence of reasoning, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 25-4-2008.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the Tribunal's findings, and the reasons behind the decisions made in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
