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 / TMI Blogs / RSS

2005 (7) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Deputy Commissioner, GATT Valuation Cell in Mumbai Custom House has passed the order-in-original holding that the respondents and the suppliers are related to each other and he has ordered for loading the value of Ethyl Benzene by 1%. 2. The respondents have also imported Styrene Monomer from M/s. BASF, Singapore. On a reference from Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Surat, the Deputy Commissioner, GATT Valuation Cell has passed a similar order loading the value by 1% as in the case of Ethyl Benzene. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order of the original authority with the following finding:- "The appellants are having a license know how agreement with Licensor of Germany for production of different BASF gra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the royalty payment is not related to manufacture of imported raw materials, but concerned with technology for production of finished goods in India. So royalty paid is not includible in value of raw materials. In the second case relating to import of Ethyl Benzene, the appellants have demonstrated that their invoice price is higher compared to ruling prices per "ICIS Price Report", which has not been disputed by adjudicating authority. In fact price has been ordered to be accepted under Rule 4(3). Regarding payment of royalty, for the reasons given in earlier paras in view of provisions of the agreement, the same is not includible in the invoice price." 4. The grounds of appeal advanced by Revenue are as follows :- "(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid is not included in the invoice price and since there is no deduction of cost of raw material it follows that the royalty is related to the imported raw materials. The invoice value of the raw material has therefore to include this percentage of royalty paid. It is also not necessary that the royalty paid is addable only if capital goods or goods of propriety nature has been imported as Rule 9(1)(c) does not make any such distinctions. (2) As per Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 the transaction value of the imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the rules. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ponents. It was therefore held by the Hon'ble Tribunal (Delhi) that the royalty paid is to be included to the cost of imported components. The same situation exists in the present case and as held in the case of Matsushita Television and Audio India Ltd. - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1093 (Tri.-Del) the royalty should be added to the invoice value. (4) In the present case the value of a part of the proceeds (in the form of royalty) of subsequent resale/use of the imported goods accrues indirectly to the seller. Rule 9(1)(d) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 specifies that the value of any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale or disposal or use of the goods that accrues directly or indirectly to the seller is required to be added ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....L.T. 77 (T), (16) Ibex Gallegher Ltd. v. CC - Final Order No. 687-691 dated 29-4-2005 [2005 (191) E.L.T. 976 (T)], 6. We have considered the submissions made from both sides. We find that the original authority has determined the respondents and suppliers to be related to each other. But the price has not been rejected on the ground of relationship. It is also not the department's case that the relationship has influenced the price. On the contrary, as noted by the lower authorities, the prices are comparable between imports from related and unrelated suppliers. As such, this is not a case of discarding the transaction value method and applying another method of valuation. The issue before us is whether any adjustments are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lication only where proceeds of resale, disposal or use of the imported goods themselves are received and part of such proceeds goes to the foreign supplier. It cannot have any application where the goods are used by the importer for further manufacture and such manufactured goods are sold subsequently. The said sub-rule (d) is clearly not intended to cover sale proceeds of goods indigenously manufactured out of imported materials. 9. As regards application of Rule 9(1)(c), we note that only such royalty, payment of which is related to the imported goods and is made as a condition of sale of such goods can be added to the declared price. In the instant case, the payment of royalty is not related to imports of Ethyl Benzene and Styrene Mo....