Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the invoice price of the imported goods was acceptable under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the 1% loading on account of royalty payment was justified.
Analysis: The buyer and seller did not have mutuality of interest merely because the foreign supplier held shares in the Indian buyer and had representation on its board, since the interest was not reciprocal. The royalty and trade-mark arrangements were linked to indigenous manufacture and marketing of goods in India under a separate licence arrangement, and not to the import of SKD/CKD packs and complete vehicles. The record did not show that the import price was depressed by any extra-commercial consideration or that the dealings were not at arm's length. A single buyer did not by itself negate the character of the price as one at which the goods were ordinarily sold, so long as the price was fully commercial and the transaction was at arm's length.
Conclusion: The invoice price satisfied Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, resort to Section 14(1)(b) and Rule 8 was unwarranted, and the 1% loading based on royalty was unjustified; the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where import transactions are at arm's length and the consideration for royalty or technical collaboration relates only to local manufacture and not to the imported goods, the assessable value must be determined under Section 14(1)(a) on the commercial invoice price, without loading for unrelated royalty payments.