9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 554 - AT - CustomsValuation - inclusion of payment of lumpsum fee towards technical knowhow fee, drawing and design fee and engineering services - Held that - The adjudicating authority itself in his order clearly says that the relationship of the joint venture company where the relationship between the supplier and the appellant has not influenced the price of import and in fact accepted the transaction value except for loading the technical knowhow fee, drawing and design fee and engineering services fee. However, we find that the Hon ble Supreme Court LB decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Can Pack India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 457 - SUPREME COURT has upheld the Tribunal s order and dismissed the Revenue appeal. By respectfully following the Apex Court decision and also maintaining this Tribunal s decision referred above, we hold that the technical knowhow, drawing and design fee and engineering services fee, are not includable in the transaction value of the imported goods. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against the OIA dated 30.04.2003 regarding the addition of technical knowhow fee, drawing and design fee, and engineering services fee to the transaction value. - Failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to follow the directions of the Tribunal and consider relevant case laws. - Dispute over whether the fees are includible in the transaction value based on the relationship between the parties and previous legal precedents. Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal against the OIA dated 30.04.2003, where the issue pertains to the addition of technical knowhow fee, drawing and design fee, and engineering services fee to the transaction value. The appellant imported raw materials and capital goods from a related company, and the DC (SVB) ordered the inclusion of these fees in the transaction value as per Rule 4(1)(c) of CVR 88. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the DC's order in OIA No. 496/2001 dated 13.08.2001. However, the Revenue appealed against this decision, leading to a remand by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 440 - 444/2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the subsequent order dated 30.04.2003 upheld the original order, prompting the present appeal. 3. The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adhere to the Tribunal's directions to consider relevant case laws and failed to provide clear findings. The counsel cited various case laws supporting the contention that the fees should not be included in the transaction value due to the relationship between the parties and the minimal influence on pricing. 4. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the inclusion of the fees based on previous judgments, including Essar Gujart Ltd. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, including factual errors and misinterpretations of the Tribunal's directions. 5. The Tribunal reviewed the case laws cited by both parties, emphasizing precedents such as Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. and Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's decision in Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., which supported the exclusion of technical fees post-importation. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, following the Supreme Court's decision and maintaining consistency with previous Tribunal judgments. The technical fees were deemed non-includable in the transaction value, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of relevant case laws, and the final decision based on legal precedents and interpretations.
|
