TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected on the ground that the buyer and seller were related and the prices reflected special discounts. (ii) Whether royalty paid under the licence arrangement was includible in the assessable value of the imported finished goods.
Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected on the ground that the buyer and seller were related and the prices reflected special discounts.
Analysis: Under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the transaction value is the starting point and must be accepted unless the conditions for rejection are made out. Where the buyer and seller are related, acceptance is still required if the circumstances of sale show that the relationship did not influence the price. Rule 12 permits rejection only when the proper officer has reasonable doubt supported by reasons and evidence. The price variation shown by the importer was marginal, there was documentary support for worldwide pricing consistency, and no evidence of flow back or other material showing that the relationship distorted the declared price.
Conclusion: The rejection of the declared transaction value was not justified and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether royalty paid under the licence arrangement was includible in the assessable value of the imported finished goods.
Analysis: Addition under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 is permissible only where the royalty or licence fee is related to the imported goods and forms a condition of sale of those goods. On the facts found, the royalty was paid for use of technology in manufacture in India and was linked to manufactured products, not to the trading imports. The royalty therefore lacked the required nexus with the imported finished goods.
Conclusion: The royalty was not includible in the assessable value and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The valuation rejection and the proposed royalty addition were unsustainable, so the importer succeeded on the merits and consequential relief followed in law.
Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation, a declared related-party transaction value cannot be rejected without evidence that the relationship influenced the price, and royalty is includible only when it is intrinsically connected to the imported goods and their sale.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
