9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of photographic film processing machine imported under a contract with certain clauses leading to a dispute.
Analysis: 1. The dispute in this case revolves around the valuation of a photographic film processing machine imported by the appellant under a contract with M/s. Fuji Photo Company Limited. The contract included clauses related to the purchase of semi-processed raw materials exclusively from Fuji, which affected the valuation of the machine. The lower authority determined that the declared value did not reflect the full consideration due to the obligation to purchase raw materials from the same supplier for seven years. This led to the addition of a licence fee to the declared value for customs duty assessment under Rule 9(1)(c) of Valuation Rules, 1988, prompting the appellant to challenge this decision. 2. The appellant argued that the obligation to pay a licence fee only arose if they failed to purchase the raw materials, making it a contingent liability. As the raw materials were indeed imported as per the contract, the appellant contended that no additional payment was due. On the other hand, the respondent highlighted that the contract waived the licence fee due to the obligation to import raw materials, with a specified penalty if the obligation was not met. The respondent asserted that the indirect payment towards the licence fee was made through the import of raw materials, justifying the invocation of Rule 9(1)(c) for valuation. 3. The records indicated that the price paid for the machine did not include the licence fee related to the know-how embodied in the machine. The continued purchase of raw materials exclusively from the supplier for seven years was considered an additional consideration for waiving the licence fee. The value of this consideration was quantified at one million yen per year for seven years. As per Customs Valuation Rules, when the price is not the sole consideration for sale, the money value of additional considerations must be added to the declared sale price to determine the assessable value for customs duty assessment. The tribunal agreed with the respondent's valuation approach, stating that it was in accordance with relevant valuation provisions. 4. Based on the above analysis, the appeal was deemed unsuccessful and rejected by the tribunal.
|
