Royalty payments to foreign entity excluded from customs assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c)

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal against customs duty calculation. The tribunal found the First Appellate Authority's order violated natural justice principles by passing a cryptic order without discussing appellant's legal arguments or providing reasoned findings. Regarding royalty payments to related foreign entity for technology and trademark use, the tribunal held Rule 10(1)(c) was inapplicable as royalty was independent of CKD kit sales and not a precondition for import. The royalty was calculated based on assembled products, not imports, making it unconnected to sale conditions and thus excludable from assessable value.

---

---

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

• Whether the royalty payments made by the importer to a related foreign entity for the use of technology and trademark are includible in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) and (e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.
• Whether the royalty payments constitute a "condition of sale" of the imported goods as required for inclusion in the transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules.
• Whether there exists a sufficient nexus between the imported goods and the royalty payments to justify inclusion of such payments in the assessable value.
• The applicability of the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for demanding differential duty on royalty payments made in earlier years.
• The legal effect and binding nature of earlier investigation reports and orders accepting the declared transaction value without including royalty payments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Inclusion of Royalty Payments in Assessable Value under Customs Valuation Rules

Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 10(1)(c) and (e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 mandate that royalty or license fees, if paid as a condition of sale of imported goods and related to those goods, must be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. The Explanation to Rule 10 clarifies that such payments are includible even if the goods are subjected to the process after importation. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner of Customs vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd. has held that the royalty payment must be a precondition for import of goods and must relate directly to the imported goods to be includible in assessable value.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the Technology License Agreement and the import contracts. It was found that the royalty payments were made to M/s. OJSC KAMAZ Inc., the licensor and parent company, for the transfer of technology and use of the "KAMAZ" trademark, and not to the foreign supplier of the CKD kits, M/s. CJSC Kamaz Foreign Trade Company (KFTC). The agreement explicitly states that the royalty is payable for each CKD kit delivered but is independent of the sale and purchase price of the CKD kits. Moreover, the royalty is payable on assembled trucks, not on the imported CKD kits themselves.

The Court emphasized that the royalty payments were for the transfer of intellectual property rights and technology, treated as import of services, on which service tax and R&D cess were also paid. Thus, the royalty was not a condition of sale of the imported goods but a separate obligation related to the manufacture and branding of the assembled trucks.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Technology License Agreement clauses 10.1, 11.1, and 11.2 were critical. The SVB investigation report of 2018 and earlier 2010 report confirmed no influence of relationship on transaction value. The royalty payments were made to a third party (licensor), not the supplier. The importer and supplier were related parties, but the royalty was paid outside the import transaction.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the twin conditions from Rule 10-(i) nexus between goods imported and royalty payment, and (ii) royalty as a precondition for sale-the Court found these conditions unmet. The royalty was unrelated to the price of the imported CKD kits and was not a prerequisite for importation. Therefore, it could not be added to the assessable value.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the royalty was a condition for import since the importer could not import CKD kits without paying royalty, and the supplier and licensee were related. However, the Court rejected this, noting that the royalty was paid to a different entity and related to technology transfer, not the import transaction. The appellant's argument that the royalty was independent and supported by prior accepted investigations was accepted.

Conclusion: The royalty payments were not includible in the assessable value of imported CKD kits under Rule 10(1)(c) and (e) as they were not a condition of sale of the imported goods nor directly related to the import price.

2. Limitation Period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962

Legal Framework: Section 28 prescribes limitation periods for demand of differential duty. The longer period applies only if there is suppression or mis-declaration with intent to evade duty.

Court's Reasoning: The appellant contended that the Department was aware of the royalty payments and the valuation issue since 2010 and had accepted the declared value without including royalty. No suppression or mis-declaration was alleged or established. Therefore, invocation of the extended limitation period was improper.

Conclusion: The demand for differential duty on royalty payments made in 2013-14 was barred by limitation as no grounds for extended limitation were made out.

3. Binding Effect of Earlier SVB Investigation and Orders

Findings: The SVB investigation in 2010 and 2018 found no influence of relationship on declared transaction value and accepted the declared value under Rule 3(3)(a). The Department had accepted these findings without appeal. The Court noted this as significant, indicating that the royalty payments were not considered part of the transaction value earlier.

Conclusion: The prior acceptance of transaction value without including royalty payments weighs against reopening the issue and imposing additional duty.

4. Interpretation of Technology License Agreement and Nature of Royalty Payment

Key Findings: The License Agreement clarified that technical documentation remains the licensor's property, and the licensee only acquires the right to use it. Royalty is payable for the right to manufacture and use the trademark. The royalty is calculated per CKD kit but payable to the licensor, not the supplier. The agreement's terms indicate that royalty is for use of intellectual property and not for the sale of goods.

Application: This supports the position that royalty is a separate payment for technology transfer, treated as import of service, and not a condition of sale of imported goods.

5. Reliance on Judicial Precedents

The Court referred extensively to binding Supreme Court decisions and Tribunal rulings, including:

• Commissioner of Customs vs. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd.: Royalty payments are includible only if they are a condition of sale and related to the imported goods.
• Commissioner of Customs vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd.: Transaction value must be relatable to import of goods, and amounts must be payable as a condition of import.
• Recent Tribunal decisions including Ajinomoto India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, which emphasized the need for a direct nexus and condition of sale for royalty inclusion.

The Court distinguished cases where royalty was added because the payment was a precondition of import or directly related to the imported goods.

Significant Holdings

"The royalty paid to KAMAZ Russia has no bearing with the import from KAMAZ, PTC. Thus, the royalty is not to be paid for the import of CKD which is also clear from reading of clause 11.2 of the technology license agreement as per which, the royalty payments are to be paid on the products assembled using the CKD kits and not on the imports."

"The royalty/license fee should not only be related to the goods imported, to be paid to the seller directly or indirectly as a condition of the sale of the goods being valued or imported. That means to say, the payment of royalty becomes includable in the price of the goods imported only if the said payment constitutes a pre-condition/prerequisite for the supply of the goods imported from the foreign supplier."

"No such condition of sale is noticed by the Original Authority from the Agreement in the impugned case and hence the judgments are distinguished."

"The transaction value declared by the importer has been accepted under rule 3(3)(a) of CVR 2007. There is nothing to show the appellant had adjusted the price of the imported goods in guise of enhanced royalty."

"The impugned order cannot sustain."

Core Principles Established

• Royalty payments are includible in assessable value only if they are a condition of sale of imported goods and directly related to the imported goods.
• Payments made to third parties unrelated to the supplier and not forming a precondition to import cannot be added to assessable value.
• Prior acceptance of transaction value by Customs authorities and absence of suppression bars reopening valuation under extended limitation.
• Each case depends on the specific terms of agreements and factual matrix; no uniform rule applies to all royalty payments.

Final Determinations

• The royalty payments made to the licensor for use of technology and trademark are not includible in the assessable value of imported CKD kits under Rule 10(1)(c) and (e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
• The demand for differential duty based on inclusion of royalty payments is barred by limitation.
• The impugned order adding royalty payments to assessable value is set aside and the appeal allowed.

---