2004 (8) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellant Company is outcome of joint venture between M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. and M/s. Barbour Campbell Group Ltd.; that in appellant Company, both M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. and M/s. Barbour Campbell Group Ltd. have equal holding of 50% each; that the appellant Company has been formed for carrying out manufacture of sewing thread, twines and braids; that the appellants have imported some dyeing machines from M/s. Barbour; that the Revenue has treated the appellants and M/s. Barbour Campbell Group Ltd. as related persons in terms of Rule 2(2)(iv) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988; that the Revenue has loaded the declared a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of thread in India. The technical know-how has no relation with the import of dyeing machine in question; that further supply of technical know-how was not linked; that import of capital goods, technical know-how was not a pre-condition for sale of capital goods and vice versa. He emphasised that technical collaboration agreement is an independent agreement which has no bearing on import of capital goods; that this aspect can be seen from the factual position as they had imported only four machines, namely, dyeing machine, printer, dye spring which is less than 4-5 per cent of total capital goods import made by them; that in other words, plant and machinery for manufacturing thread was primarily procured from independent sources other than....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Binding Corporation (GBC, a U.S. firm), was holding 40% share in M/s. Modi GBC Ltd. The Tribunal has held that the fact that GBC was owning 40% of the respondent company, would not itself give it control over the respondent as it would be out voted in any decision making by the remaining share holders. The Tribunal has also held that in respect of ownership of the respondents shares to the extent of 40% of the equity does not attract the provisions of clause (iv) of Rule 2(2) of the Rules since both the persons considered to be related must be owned or controlled by another person. Accordingly, we hold that both the appellants and the foreign supplier are not related persons in terms of Clause (iv) of Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation ....