2003 (9) TMI 282 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the technical know-how fee is includible in the value of imported goods under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Arguments by Appellant:
The appeal concerns whether the technical know-how fee should be added to the value of goods imported by M/s. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. The appellant entered into an agreement with a UK company for technology transfer and project management services. The Deputy Commissioner added 10% of the lump sum fee to the invoice value of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal. The appellant argued that the technical know-how fee did not impact the imported goods and that there was no compulsion to purchase equipment from the collaborator. They cited legal precedents to support their case.

2. Appellant's Contention:
The appellant contended that the technical know-how fee was not a condition of sale for the imported goods. They argued that the supplier did not impose any obligation to purchase equipment. Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules requires payments to be made as a condition of sale, which was not the case here. Legal judgments were cited to support their position.

3. Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue argued that the technical know-how fee was directly related to the purchase of imported goods. They emphasized the connection between the technical know-how and the impugned goods. The adjudicating authority had added 5% of the fee to the invoice value based on best judgment due to lack of quantifiable data.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Valuation Rules and noted that the technical know-how fee must be proven as a condition of sale to be added to the assessable value of imported goods. They found no evidence that the fee was a condition imposed by the supplier. Legal precedents were cited to support the decision. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the technical know-how fee was not a condition of sale for the imported goods, as required by Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Legal precedents and lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's argument led to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.