Royalty payments for technology transfer not includible in transaction value of imported goods under Section 14

CESTAT Chennai ruled that royalty payments under a Licence and Technical Assistance Agreement (2012-2015) were not includible in the transaction value of imported goods. The tribunal found that the 4% royalty on net sales value was for technology transfer, manufacturing know-how, and trademark usage, not linked to imported raw materials. Since royalty payment was not a pre-condition for sale of imported goods, it could not be added to assessable value under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the royalty payments made by the Respondent-Assessee to M/s. Daido Metal Company, Japan, are to be added to the value of imported raw materials in terms of Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Procedural History:
The Commissioner of Customs III, Chennai, filed an appeal reviewing the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which had set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch, Chennai. The Respondent-Assessee, M/s. BBL Daido Private Limited, imported various machinery and raw materials from M/s. Daido Metal Company, Japan. The relationship between the Indian company and the foreign supplier was established, and the declared invoice value was initially accepted as the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.

2. Documents and Evidence Submitted:
The Respondent-Assessee submitted various documents, including details of transactions, annual reports, license and technical assistance agreements, and declarations affirming no change in pricing patterns. These documents were periodically renewed and reviewed by the competent authority.

3. Assistant Commissioner's Findings:
The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the royalty paid by the importer was related to the imported goods and constituted a condition of sale. This conclusion was based on the non-deduction of the landed cost of imported components from the Net Sales Value on which royalty was computed. The Original Authority relied on the decision in M/s. Matsushita Television & Audio (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, which held that royalty related to imported goods and a condition of sale could be added to the declared price.

4. Commissioner (Appeals) Findings:
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, stating that the payment of royalty was not a condition of sale for the imported goods. The agreement did not make royalty payment a precondition for the sale of raw materials. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on decisions in M/s. Brembo Breaks India P. Ltd. and Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/s. Ibex Gallegher Ltd., which supported the non-addition of royalty to the transaction value.

5. Revenue's Grounds of Appeal:
The Revenue argued that the landed cost of imported components was not deducted to arrive at the Net Sales Value on which royalty was computed, establishing a nexus between royalty and imported goods. They contended that the conditions of Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR 2007 were fulfilled, warranting the addition of royalty to the transaction value.

6. Respondent-Assessee's Arguments:
The Respondent-Assessee argued that previous orders did not find royalty payments as a condition of sale. They emphasized that the royalty was calculated on the sale price of finished goods, not solely on the value of imported goods. They cited various judicial precedents, including Commissioner of Customs Vs. BASF Strenics P. Ltd., which held that royalty payments based on the sale price of finished goods do not relate to imported goods.

7. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal examined the Licence and Technical Assistance Agreement, noting that the royalty payment was based on the Net Sales Value, excluding the cost of imported components. The Tribunal found no clause in the agreement making royalty payment a condition of sale for imported goods. They relied on judicial precedents, including Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner of Customs Vs. Toyota Kirloskart Motor Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized the need for a clear condition of sale for adding royalty to the transaction value.

The Tribunal concluded that the royalty payments were not addable to the transaction value of imported goods, as there was no condition of sale attached to the imports. They upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

8. Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that royalty payments made by the Respondent-Assessee to M/s. Daido Metal Company, Japan, are not to be added to the value of imported raw materials in terms of Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

---