Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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: (i) whether franchise fee paid for licensing rights in relation to TH and FC brands was includible in the value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007; (ii) whether advertisement and promotional expenses and corporate marketing fee were includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(e) of those Rules; and (iii) whether the extended period of limitation was invokable.
Issue (i): whether franchise fee paid for licensing rights in relation to TH and FC brands was includible in the value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.
Analysis: Rule 10(1)(c) permits inclusion only of royalties and licence fees related to imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale. The franchise fee in question was paid for domestic sell, distribute and promote rights, not as consideration for procurement of the goods from the overseas suppliers. The imports were on principal-to-principal basis from independent foreign suppliers, and the payment did not constitute a condition of sale of the imported goods.
Conclusion: The franchise fee was not includible in the assessable value and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether advertisement and promotional expenses and corporate marketing fee were includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.
Analysis: Rule 10(1)(e) applies only to payments made as a condition of sale to the seller or to a third party to satisfy an obligation of the seller. The advertisement and promotional expenses were incurred by the importer on its own account for its business in India, and the corporate marketing fee was also not shown to be payable to the overseas suppliers or to any third party at their instance. Such post-import business expenditure, even if it incidentally benefited the foreign brand owner, was not an additional consideration for the imported goods.
Conclusion: The advertisement and promotional expenses and the corporate marketing fee were not includible in the assessable value and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether the extended period of limitation was invokable.
Analysis: The imports had already been provisionally assessed and the matter was within the knowledge of the revenue, including through earlier provisional assessments and finalisation proceedings. In these circumstances, suppression was not made out so as to justify invocation of the extended period.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand, confiscation consequences, redemption fine and penalty could not survive, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Royalty, licence fee, advertisement spend or similar business payments are includible in customs value only when they are shown to be a condition of sale of the imported goods and to have a direct legal nexus with the import transaction, not when they are incurred on the importer's own account for post-import commercial activities.