Strict construction of import licences and proof of related-person valuation challenges determine customs liability and declared value acceptance.
A customs import licence must be construed strictly according to its express nomenclature and listed items. On that basis, photocopier components falling outside the specified non-electric parts were held not covered by the licence, and confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld. On valuation, technical collaboration and royalty arrangements alone did not establish related-person status or mutuality of interest. In the absence of evidence proving such relationship, the declared invoice value could not be rejected and had to be accepted. The decision therefore affirms strict licence interpretation while limiting customs valuation objections to cases supported by evidence.
Issues: (i) Whether the imported photocopier components were covered by the import licence and liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the declared invoice value could be rejected on the footing that the importer and foreign supplier were related persons.
Issue (i): Whether the imported photocopier components were covered by the import licence and liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The licence had to be read strictly according to its nomenclature and the listed components. The list attached to the licence permitted only specified non-electric components, and the goods imported, when examined against that list, were found to include assemblies and machine parts not covered by the licence description. Extraneous reliance on the phased manufacturing programme was not accepted, but the broader reading sought by the importer was rejected because the licence language did not extend to the imported combinations of parts.
Conclusion: The goods were not covered by the licence and the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the declared invoice value could be rejected on the footing that the importer and foreign supplier were related persons.
Analysis: The mere existence of technical collaboration and royalty arrangements did not by itself establish related-person status or mutuality of interest. In the absence of evidence showing mutual interest or comparable higher imports, the invoice value could not be discarded. The valuation basis adopted by Customs was therefore unsustainable on the material before the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The rejection of the invoice value was set aside and the declared value was directed to be accepted, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on valuation but failed on the question of licence coverage and confiscation, resulting in a partial relief with consequential reduction of redemption fine and penalty and a direction for re-appraisal only in respect of the disputed cover glass value.
Ratio Decidendi: A customs import licence must be construed strictly by its express nomenclature and listed items, and invoice value cannot be rejected as between alleged related persons unless mutuality of interest is proved by evidence.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
