Tribunal rules technology transfer fee not part of imported machinery value.

The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding the valuation of imported machinery and technology transfer fee. It held that the technology transfer fee did not need to be added to the value of the imported equipment under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found that the Basic Engineering Package (BEP) provided by the joint venture partner was not directly necessary for production and that the detailed engineering work was conducted in India, not by the joint venture partner. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous decision.

---

---

Issues:
Valuation of imported machinery including technology transfer fee under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of Customs Valuation Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the dispute concerning the valuation of imported machinery, specifically whether the technology transfer fee should be added to the purchase price under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant, a joint venture company, engaged in manufacturing thermo plastic alloys, blends, and compounds, entered into an agreement for technology transfer with a joint venture partner. The Customs authorities contended that a portion of the $6 million technology transfer fee should be added to the value of imported equipment. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, citing that the Basic Engineering Package (BEP) provided by the joint venture partner was essential for detailed engineering work and thus fell under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv).

The appellant argued against the Commissioner's decision, stating that the BEP was merely a process diagram and did not constitute engineering, development, or design work as per Rule 9(1)(b)(iv). They highlighted that the detailed engineering drawings were prepared by an Indian company, not the joint venture partner, and therefore, did not meet the criteria of being undertaken elsewhere than in India. The appellant also referenced a previous tribunal decision in favor of SRF Ltd., which held that the BEP did not fall under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv).

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the BEP supplied by the joint venture partner did not meet the requirements of Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) as it was not directly necessary for the production of the imported goods, and the detailed engineering work was undertaken in India. The Tribunal emphasized that the Rule only permits inclusion of material directly necessary for production, which the BEP did not fulfill. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were not justified in law or fact, aligning with their previous decision in the SRF Ltd. case. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---