9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the royalty payment is related to the imported goods and if it should be included in the customs value under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 2. Whether the technical know-how fees and royalty payment are conditions of sale for the imported goods. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Relationship of Royalty Payment to Imported Goods: The Revenue challenged the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) decision, which upheld that the royalty payment is not related to the imported goods and thus not covered by Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the transaction value under Rule 4(3) but did not include the technical know-how fees or royalty in the valuation, which the Revenue argued is mandatory under Rule 9. The Indian Collaborator Company imports high-speed tools and components from foreign collaborators and uses technical know-how provided by them. The Revenue contended that the royalty and technical know-how fees are related to the imported goods because the imports are useless without the manufacturing process outlined in the technical documentation. 2. Condition of Sale and Royalty Payment: The adjudicating authority found that the royalty payment is not a condition of sale attached to the agreements. However, the Revenue argued that the agreement between the Indian Company and its foreign collaborators included conditions that necessitated the payment of royalty. The agreement allowed the Indian Company to manufacture and sell products using the foreign collaborator's designs, trademarks, and patents, implying that the royalty payment is a condition for obtaining these rights. The Revenue cited the RBI's approval letters, which showed an adjustment from a lump sum payment to a 5% royalty, indicating that the royalty was related to the imported goods. 3. Legal Precedents and Applicability: The Revenue referenced judgments from the Supreme Court, including M/s. Essar Gujarat Limited and State Bank of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, to support their argument that the royalty should be included in the customs value. The Revenue argued that the Indian Company misled the department by adjusting the technical know-how fees in the guise of enhanced royalty. The Commissioner (Appeal) observed that the importer purchased raw materials from unrelated parties, suggesting no binding condition to buy from the foreign collaborator. The Revenue countered this by highlighting the agreement clauses and the timing of RBI approvals, which they claimed showed an adjustment to cover import costs. 4. Examination of Agreement and Evidence: The agreement between the Indian Company and foreign collaborators was examined, showing that the royalty payment was for the use of know-how, patents, and trademarks in manufacturing specified products in India. The agreement did not mandate the purchase of imported goods from the collaborators. The Commissioner (Appeal) noted that the royalty had not been paid at the time, and there was no documentary evidence to prove otherwise. The Revenue provided a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing royalty payable, but this did not contradict the fact that no payment had been made. 5. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the royalty payments were not related to the imported goods and were not a condition of sale. The agreement was solely for the use of intellectual property in manufacturing in India, with no connection to the import of goods. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the Essar Gujarat Ltd. case, where the licence fee was a condition precedent to the import. The Tribunal found that the royalty payments in this case were for post-importation manufacture and not related to the import itself. Final Order: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the lower authority's decision that the royalty payments were not includible in the customs value under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The appeal was ordered to be dismissed.
|
