2008 (5) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Technical Collaboration Agreement with foreign Collaborator to manufacture goods - whether the royalty payable by the respondent to the foreign collaborator needs to be included in the value of the goods imported by the respondents - It is noticed that there is no stipulation or condition in respect of the payment of royalty relating to the goods imported by the respondent - since payment of royalty, is not a condition of sale of the goods being valued, Rule 9(1)(c) will not apply.

Summary

Issues:
Whether royalty payable by the respondent needs to be included in the value of imported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) where the adjudicating authority's decision was upheld. The case involved a Technical Collaboration and Licence Agreement between the respondents and a foreign collaborator for manufacturing and selling specific products without any technical know-how fees. The compensation for the services rendered was in the form of royalty based on sales. The dispute arose when the revenue sought to include the royalty payment in the value of imported components, arguing that there was a clear nexus between the imported goods and the royalty payable.

The revenue contended that the lower authorities erred in not loading the value of imported components with the royalty amount paid by the respondents. They argued that since the agreement did not exclude the cost of imported components from the royalty payment, and the selling price did not define the unit price, there was a direct connection between the imported goods and the royalty. The revenue claimed that no contrary evidence was submitted by the respondents to disprove this nexus.

On the other hand, the appellants' counsel relied on previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court judgments to support their position. They argued that the royalty paid by the respondents was based on the sale value of the goods manufactured using the imported components, emphasizing that the issue was settled by legal precedents.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal analyzed whether the royalty payable should be included in the value of imported goods. They found that the agreement did not stipulate any conditions regarding royalty payment concerning the imported goods. Additionally, the agreement did not restrict the respondents from sourcing components externally. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that as long as royalty payment was not a condition of the goods' sale, Rule 9(1)(c) did not apply. Since the revenue failed to provide contradictory evidence, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings, concluding that the appeal was without merit.

Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the revenue's appeal and affirming the decision that the royalty payable by the respondent did not need to be included in the value of the imported goods.