Royalty and advertisement costs for imported goods excluded from assessable value under Rules 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(e)

CESTAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the appellant regarding valuation of imported goods. The tribunal held that royalty and advertisement costs incurred by the appellant in India should not be included in assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) and Rule 10(1)(e) of Customs Valuation Rules 2007. Advertisement and sales promotion were deemed post-import activities undertaken by appellant on its own account, not to discharge seller's obligations. The parties were found to be unrelated as their relationship was principal-to-principal basis. Extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified as no wilful suppression was proven. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported goods.
2. Addition of royalty and advertisement costs to the transaction value.
3. Relationship between the Appellant and the supplier.
4. Invocation of penal provisions for alleged willful suppression.

Summary:

1. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The Appellant, a sole distributor for M/s Jockey International USA and Speedo International, U.K, contested the addition of royalty and advertisement costs to the transaction value of imported goods. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for Rs. 37,40,81,065/- as differential duty, which the Appellant challenged.

2. Addition of Royalty to Transaction Value:
The Appellant argued that the royalty paid to M/s Jockey International and M/s Speedo International under the reverse charge mechanism for services should not be added to the transaction value of imported goods, as it would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal noted that royalty can only be included if it is directly related to the imported goods, paid to the seller, and a condition of sale. The Tribunal found no evidence that the royalty paid was related to the imported raw materials, concluding that it pertained to finished goods manufactured by the Appellant.

3. Relationship Between Appellant and Supplier:
The Tribunal examined whether the Appellant and the suppliers were related persons under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. It found no cogent evidence to support the claim that the Appellant and M/s Jockey International were related persons. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CC (Imports), Mumbai Vs Bayer Corp Science Ltd, emphasizing that mere sole distributorship does not establish a related relationship.

4. Advertisement Costs:
The Tribunal determined that advertisement costs incurred by the Appellant were post-import activities undertaken on their own account and not a condition of sale of the imported goods. It referenced the Tribunal's decision in M/s Indo Rubber & Plastics Works Vs CC, New Delhi, which established that such costs should not be added to the transaction value.

5. Invocation of Penal Provisions:
The Tribunal found no justification for invoking penal provisions for alleged willful suppression, as the Appellant was not required to declare the goods as imported from related parties. The relationship was deemed principal to principal, and the Appellant's sole distributorship did not constitute a related party status under the Customs Act or Valuation Rules.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating authority's order, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs. The demand for differential duty and the addition of royalty and advertisement costs to the transaction value were found to be unsustainable. The invocation of extended period for penal provisions was also deemed unjustified.

---