9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning in February, 1993. This plant had originally been purchased by M/s. Georgia Pacific, USA from M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd. (ACIL), Japan. After the purchase of the plant from M/s. Interface, Dubai, M/s. DCM, Shriram Consolidated entered into a technical collaboration agreement with M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd. for setting up the aforesaid Caustic Soda Plant in India. When the Plant was imported, question arose as to whether the amount (Japanese Yen 32,000,000.00) paid to M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd. towards collaboration agreement fees was to form a part of the assessable value of the plant under import. The question was raised specifically in the context of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Yen 3.00 million paid for Data Sheets equipment and Instruments except the proprietary equipment of ACI should be added to value of the goods imported for their 150 TPD Caustic Soda Plant at Jhagadia, Distt. Bharuch, Gujarat on pro rata basis." 2. The Revenue felt aggrieved by the above order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the Revenue and ordered the addition of 32 million Japanese Yen to the price of second-hand plant in order to arrive at its assessable value, again relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd. This made M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated the aggrieved party. Hence the present appeal. 3. The contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional and the cost of such technical collaboration, which is essential to make the plant operational, is to form part of the assessable value of a plant in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd. 4. During the hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant-importer emphasizes that apart from the fact that the two agreements in question were separate and independent, it had been confirmed by M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd. that there was no requirement for a separate licence from M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd. for the running of the second-hand plant after it is set up in India. He also drew our attention to the terms of the sale agreement to show that the second-hand plant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no condition for the sale of the plant; that no royalty or licence fee was to be paid to any party in relation to the imported goods, or that any royalty or fees payable had not actually been included in the price of the plant. The learned Counsel submitted that to the transaction on hand provisions of Rule 9(c) are not attracted. He also pointed out that the appellant's case is quite distinguishable from the case of M/s. Essar Gujarat. In that case, the requirements under Rule 9(c) were satisfied, inasmuch as it was a condition of sale that the buyer obtains transfer of the operation licence from a third party, namely, M/s. Midrex of Charloti, USA, while in the present case there was no condition regarding obtaining of licence. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
