2022 (5) TMI 496 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - import of various parts such as side plate, back plate, tube casting, motor base and impeller for use in manufacturing its final products - buyer and seller are related persons in terms of Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 or not - transaction between the buyer and seller are influenced by such relationship or not - addition is required to be made to the assessable value of the imported goods under Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules or not. Whether the buyer and seller are related persons in terms of Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007? - HELD THAT - It is undisputed that the appellant and its overseas supplier are sister concerns and are related persons. It is also undisputed that the relationship has not affected the transaction value. However, in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules royalty and license fee related to imported goods which the buyer is required to pay directly or indirectly as a condition of sale of the goods has to be included, to the extent that such royalty and fees are not included in the price payable or paid has to be added. It is also undisputed that the ex-factory price of the goods did not include the miscellaneous charges which were indicated in the invoices and that they need to be included. The only dispute is factual - whether they were included or not in the Bill of Entry. Learned Counsel has demonstrated before us that they were indeed included in the values in the Bill of Entry. However, these charges were included under a different column and the figure 0 was indicated against the column Miscellaneous Charges . The net effect of the valuation insofar as these charges is concerned is that the miscellaneous charges were included by the appellant in the Bill of Entry. Therefore, there are no reason or justification to add them again to the assessable value. Includibility of royalty/license fee paid by the appellant to its holding company as a percentage of its total sales turnover in the assessable value - HELD THAT - As per Rule 10(1)(c ) any royalty paid directly or indirectly as a condition for the import is includible in the assessable value of the imported goods. In Matsushita Television Audio (I) Ltd. the agreement between the importer and the technology service provider related to the components which were imported since clause 7.02 of that agreement stipulated that not only the technology partner assisted the appellant by selling the components were also assessed and approved components which were bought out items - It needs to be seen whether the payment of such royalty is pre-condition to the sale of the imported goods. No such condition emerges from the agreement in the present case. The goods were also not imported under the agreement. In view of the above, it is found that the royalty cannot be included in the assessable value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the buyer and seller are related persons in terms of Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.
2. Whether the transactions between the buyer and seller are influenced by such relationship.
3. Whether any addition is required to be made to the assessable value of the imported goods under Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules.
4. Whether the amount of royalty or license fee paid to the associated enterprises is includible under Rule 10(1)(c) of Valuation Rules.
5. Whether the value of miscellaneous expenses is included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 10(2) of Valuation Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Relationship Between Buyer and Seller:
The adjudicating authority found that the importer (appellant) and the overseas supplier were related persons. This was established under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

2. Influence of Relationship on Transaction Value:
The adjudicating authority decided that there was no evidence to establish that the relationship influenced the transaction value. Therefore, the transaction value was accepted in terms of Rule 3(3)(a) of the Valuation Rules.

3. Additions to Assessable Value Under Rule 10:
The adjudicating authority held that the license fee paid by the appellant to M/s Kruger Asia Holding Pte. Ltd., Singapore, under the technical aid agreement, needed to be added to the assessable value in terms of Rule 10(1)(c) of Valuation Rules.

4. Inclusion of Royalty/License Fee:
The appellant argued that the license fee paid to the associated company should not be included under Rule 10(1)(c) of Valuation Rules since the agreement for technical assistance was not a condition for the sale of the imported goods. The license fee was based on total net sales and was not linked to the import of goods. The appellant cited similar cases where such fees were not included in the assessable value.

The Department, however, contended that the royalty/license fee should be included in the assessable value as per Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rule 10(1)(c) of Valuation Rules. The Department cited several judgments to support their argument that such fees are a condition of sale and should be included.

The Tribunal found that the Technical Aid Agreement did not mandate the import of components and that the royalty was not a pre-condition for the sale of imported goods. Therefore, the royalty paid by the appellant was not to be included in the assessable value.

5. Miscellaneous Expenses:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had included miscellaneous charges in the assessable value. The appellant demonstrated that these charges were already included in the Bill of Entry but under a different column. The Tribunal found no reason to add them again to the assessable value.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the royalty/license fee was not a condition of sale and should not be included in the assessable value of the imported goods. Additionally, the miscellaneous charges were already included in the Bill of Entry and did not need to be added again.

← Previous Next →