9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Valuation of technical information for customs duty. 2. Allocation of costs under different headings. 3. Imposition of penalty. Issue 1 - Valuation of Technical Information: The appellants entered into a technical collaboration agreement with a Korean company to produce color picture tubes. The dispute arose when the Commissioner held that the technical information obtained under the agreement was liable to customs duty. The appellants contended that the valuation carried out by the Commissioner was incorrect, particularly regarding the technology cost for 14" picture tubes. The Commissioner allocated half the value of the agreement for 14" tubes towards certain volumes, despite the collaboration not materializing for that specific product. The Tribunal reviewed the agreement and concluded that since no payment was made for the 14" tubes, the volumes related to it had no commercial value. The Tribunal also accepted the appellants' argument that the total cost should be allocated among various obligations as per relevant case law, ultimately reducing the duty demand to Rs. 14.47 lakhs. Issue 2 - Allocation of Costs: The appellants disputed the allocation made by the Commissioner under different headings, arguing that the Commissioner wrongly considered the technology cost for 14" tubes and made incorrect allocations. The Tribunal examined the collaboration agreement and determined that the payment made was specifically for the transfer of technology related to 20" and 21" tubes, not for the 14" tubes. As the collaboration for 14" tubes did not materialize, the volumes related to it had no commercial value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants' contention that the total cost should be apportioned among relevant heads, as supported by previous legal precedents. By allocating 1/3 of the total cost, the duty payable by the appellants on the drawings was reduced to Rs. 14.47 lakhs. Issue 3 - Imposition of Penalty: Regarding the penalty, the appellants had already deposited a certain amount before the show cause notice was issued. The learned Counsel argued that no penalty should be imposed based on previous Tribunal decisions. However, the SDR contended that since the Tribunal had upheld the penalty in the past, it was not open for the appellants to challenge it. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and reduced the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh, finding it to be sufficient in this case. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed by reducing the duty demand to Rs. 14.47 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. The payment already made by the appellants was to be adjusted towards the confirmed duty and penalty.
|
