1991 (3) TMI 137 - HC - Customs

Court upholds ruling, dismisses appeal on unjustified duty loading

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's ruling that the Assistant Collector's decision to load 1.5% on the invoice value of CKD ... Valuation (Customs) - Words and phrases Issues Involved:1. Justification of loading 1.5% on the invoice value of CKD components under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963.2. Whether the lump sum payment for technical know-how is related to the price of CKD packs.3. Applicability of Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act regarding interest in the business of each other.4. Validity of the Assistant Collector's decision to load the invoice value based on best judgment under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of loading 1.5% on the invoice value of CKD components:The primary question was whether the Assistant Collector of Customs was justified in loading 1.5% on the invoice value of CKD components imported by Mahindra by exercising powers under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. The Assistant Collector held that the collaboration agreement was composite, covering not just technical know-how but also designs, patents, and trademarks. Therefore, the invoice value was not the sole consideration for the sale of CKD components, prompting the application of Section 14(1)(b). However, the learned Single Judge quashed this decision, ruling that the lump sum payment had no connection to the CKD packs' supply and their price was independently negotiated.2. Lump sum payment for technical know-how and its relation to CKD packs:Article 'E' of the agreement specified that Mahindra paid 15 Million French Francs for PEUGEOT technology, unrelated to CKD packs' supply. Article 'F' dealt with CKD packs, stating that their price was Peugeot's ex-works price as notified and agreed upon by Mahindra. The learned Single Judge found no nexus between the lump sum payment and CKD packs' price, emphasizing that Mahindra was not obligated to purchase CKD packs from Peugeot, and prices were negotiated independently. This was supported by evidence that Mahindra sourced components from other suppliers when prices were unfavorable.3. Applicability of Section 14(1)(a) regarding interest in the business of each other:Section 14(1)(a) mandates that the invoice value is accepted unless the seller and buyer have an interest in each other's business and the price is not the sole consideration. The Assistant Collector argued that Mahindra and Peugeot had mutual business interests. However, the learned Single Judge, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Atic Industries Limited, concluded that there was no mutual interest. The collaboration agreement was purely for technical know-how transfer, with no business interest in each other's operations. This was further supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Udyog Limited, which reiterated the necessity of mutuality for Section 14(1)(a) exclusion.4. Validity of the Assistant Collector's decision to load the invoice value based on best judgment:Even assuming Section 14(1)(b) applied, the Assistant Collector's decision to load the invoice value by 1.5% under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules was challenged. The learned Single Judge found this arbitrary, as there was no substantive evidence that the invoice value did not reflect the true price. The Assistant Collector's loading was based on assumptions without concrete material. The court held that the exercise of best judgment must be reasonable and not arbitrary, which was not the case here.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision that the Assistant Collector's order was unsustainable. The lump sum payment for technical know-how had no connection to the CKD packs' price, and there was no mutual business interest between Mahindra and Peugeot to justify the application of Section 14(1)(b). The Assistant Collector's arbitrary loading of the invoice value was also invalid. The court directed the refund of excess duty with interest and finalization of provisional assessments based on the invoice values.