2015 (2) TMI 955 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Inclusion of amount of royalty on the imported goods - Held that - There is a contradiction in the stand taken by the Customs as far as inclusion of royalty on the goods imported. On the one hand it is held that if the foreign supplier is not related, royalty is not includable whereas if the foreign supplier is related royalty is includable. Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rule, 2007 does not make any distinction on the basis of relationship between the parties for its application and the said Rule applies uniformly irrespective of whether the supplier and the importer are related or not. Further Rule 10 (1) (c) specifically excludes the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation as per the interpretative notes given in the schedule thereto. The World Customs Organization has also interpreted the term right to reproduce the imported goods as reproduced in para 2 above and as can be seen from the clarification given by the WCO, it would also include animal or plant species which are reproduced from the imported goods. More or less identical matter was considered by this Tribunal this Tribunal came to the conclusion that royalty paid for the reproduction of imported seeds in India cannot be added to the assessable value of the seeds. The same ration would also apply to the facts of the present case. - royalty paid by the appellants herein for the reproduction of the imported clumps in India cannot be added to the value of the clumps - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Inclusion of royalty paid to a related foreign supplier in the cost of clumps imported by the appellant.
- Interpretation of Rule 10 (1) (c) of the Customs Valuation Rule, 2007.
- Distinction in the treatment of royalty based on the relationship between the parties involved.
- Application of the World Customs Organization's interpretation regarding the right to reproduce imported goods.
- Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision in a similar matter.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the affirmation by the appellate authority regarding the inclusion of royalty paid to a related foreign supplier in the cost of clumps imported by the appellant. The appellant argues that the royalty paid for post-importation activities should not be considered a condition of sale for the imported goods. They rely on Rule 10 (1) (c) of the Customs Valuation Rule, 2007, which excludes charges for the right to reproduce imported goods in the country of importation. The appellant contests the department's logic in selectively including royalty only for related foreign suppliers and not for non-related suppliers, emphasizing that Rule 10 applies universally to all situations mentioned therein.

2. The Customs Valuation Rule, 2007, is analyzed to determine the applicability of including royalty in the assessable value of imported goods. The Tribunal notes a contradiction in the department's stance, highlighting that Rule 10 does not differentiate based on the relationship between parties. The interpretation provided by the World Customs Organization regarding the right to reproduce imported goods, encompassing animal or plant species, is deemed relevant. Reference is made to previous Tribunal decisions, such as the case of Syngenta India Ltd., where it was established that royalty paid for reproduction in India should not be added to the value of imported seeds, supporting the appellant's argument.

3. The Tribunal concludes that the royalty paid by the appellant for reproducing imported clumps in India should not be included in the clumps' value. Emphasizing the uniform application of Rule 10 and the authoritative interpretations provided by the World Customs Organization, the Tribunal finds in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order. The decision aligns with established legal principles and precedents, reinforcing the appellant's position regarding the treatment of royalty in the customs valuation process.