TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms valuation of imported goods in Customs case involving technical collaboration agreement and royalties.</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD.</h3> COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 712 (Tribunal) Issues: Valuation of imported goods under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on technical collaboration agreement and royalty payments.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the valuation of imported goods under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, in light of a technical collaboration agreement and royalty payments. The appellant, the Collector of Customs, Bombay, challenged an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dated 10-11-1993. The case involved M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi, who had a Technical Collaboration Agreement with M/s. Honda Motors Co. Ltd., Japan, which included royalty payments and industrial property rights. The dispute arose due to the valuation of goods imported from Japan by M/s. Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi, under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963.The Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi, citing precedents such as Collector of Customs v. Modi Xerox Ltd., Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, and Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon v. Collr. of Cus. The appellant argued that the valuation rules prior to 1988 were not applicable to the case, emphasizing the determination of transaction value under the Valuation Rules of 1988. The Department contended that the price under Section 14 is a deemed value and negotiated price cannot be considered the normal price. The appellant highlighted the collaborative nature of the agreement, indicating control and supervision by the foreign supplier.In response, the respondents' counsel argued that there was factual similarity between the present case and the precedents relied upon by the Collector (Appeals). The counsel referenced subsequent Tribunal decisions supporting their position. Upon considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal held that the respondents' case aligned with the decisions relied upon by the Collector (Appeals) and subsequent judgments. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement of mutuality of interest between the parties for valuation under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was established that the royalty payments were not solely attributable to the price of imported goods but were part of a broader compensation mechanism for technical assistance and rights granted under the agreement.The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was rightly based on consistent findings from previous decisions, including the Maruti Udyog case and Bombay High Court judgments. The appeal by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, was rejected, affirming the valuation under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as per the technical collaboration agreement and royalty payment terms.
TaxTMI 