Technical fee not part of assessable value in import case, Tribunal rules

The Tribunal held that the technical fee paid by the Appellants for obtaining know-how should not be added to the assessable value of the imported goods. The relationship between the parties and the nature of the payment indicated that it was not a condition of the sale of the imported goods. The Tribunal found no evidence to establish a related person status between the parties, concluding that the technical fee was unrelated to the imported goods' value. As a result, the impugned Order was set aside, and the technical fee was not included in the assessable value of the goods imported by the Appellants.

---

---

Issues involved: Whether technical information and know-how fee is to be added in the assessable value of the goods imported.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Jay Ushin Ltd. to determine if the technical information and know-how fee should be added to the assessable value of imported goods.
2. The Appellants entered into a Technical Assistance Agreement with M/s. Shinghchong Electric Co. Ltd., Korea, to obtain necessary know-how for manufacturing key sets and multi-function switches.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Appellants are related to M/s. Yushin under Customs Valuation Rules and added the technical information fee to the value of imported goods.
4. The Appellants argued that the relationship between Yushin and the Appellant does not impact the valuation of goods as they imported from Shing Chang, not Yushin.
5. They contended that Shing Chang is neither a parent nor a subsidiary company, and the payment made was for technical information and know-how, not related to the imported goods.
6. The Appellants cited legal precedents to support their argument that the technical fee should not be added to the assessable value of imported goods.
7. The Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned Order, supporting the addition of the technical fee to the assessable value.
8. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Valuation Rules and found no evidence to establish a relationship between the Appellants and Shingchang Electric Co. Ltd. as related persons.
9. The Tribunal determined that the technical fee paid was for providing technical information and not a condition of the sale of imported goods, as per Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules.
10. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the technical fee was not related to the imported goods and should not be included in the assessable value of the goods imported by the Appellants.
11. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order and held that the technical fee paid by the Appellants is not to be added to the assessable value of the imported goods.

---