Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (3) TMI 1215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri R. Rajaraman appeared and argued for the Department. It is submitted by him that as per periodical review, the earlier Order-in-Original No.5884/2007 dated 19.02.2007 was taken up by the Special Valuation Branch. In the said order, it was directed to include the fee of EURO 40,000 for transfer of technical knowhow in the assessable value on import of new capital goods. The importer had filed an affidavit stating that there is no change in technical collaboration / agency / distribution agreement / method of invoicing and also submitted relevant documents/affidavit and invoices. They requested to maintain the earlier OIO No.5884/2007 dated 19.02.2007. After verifying the documents, the Special Valuation Branch passed Order-in-Original No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... adverted to the collaboration agreement dt. 21.06.2004. The decisions in the case of CC (Port), Kolkata Vs J.K. Corporation Ltd. - 2007 (208) ELT 485 (SC) and CC (Port), Chennai Vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor P. Ltd. - 2007 (213) ELT 4 (SC) was relied to argue that when the technical knowhow which is given, is not a condition for sale of the goods, the same cannot be added to the assessable value of imported goods. There was an omission to put forward this argument before the original authority. Being a legal issue, the respondent opted to file appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Counsel prayed that appeal filed by the department may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue to be decided is whether the order passed by the Dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The sole question which, therefore, arises for consideration in this appeal, is as to whether customs duty would be payable on the purchase price of the goods by adding the value of licence and technical knowhow, etc. to the value of the imported goods. 9. The basic principle of levy of customs duty, in view of the aforementioned provisions, is that the value of the imported goods has to be determined at the time and place of importation. The value to be determined for the imported goods would be the payment required to be made as a condition of sale. Assessment of customs duty must have a direct nexus with the value of goods which was payable at the time of importation. If any amount is to be paid after the importation of the go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the importer as consideration for the technical know-how and assistance provided by the supplier for manufacturing wax oxidates in India, a fact correctly discerned by the lower appellate authority from the agreement between the importer and the supplier. The payment had no relation to the imported goods. Moreover, the payment was not a condition for the sale of the goods to the importer. The averments to the contra in this appeal of the Revenue are only ipse dixit. Neither of the conditions for applicability of Rule 9(l)(c) existed in this case. Therefore, the aforesaid fee was not liable to be added to the transaction value of the goods imported by the respondents. This view is squarely supported by the decision of this Bench in HIS Aut....