9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant from M/s. Yogokawa Medical Systems (YMS) and Affiliates of M/s. GEYMS Affiliate under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Two issues are coming up for consideration in this appeal, namely, (1) Whether the lump sum amounts paid as technical know-how fee by the appellant to M/s. Yogokawa Medical Systems for transfer of technology relating to the manufacture of Ultra Sound Scanners and CT Scanners is required to be added to the value of the imported components ? (2) Whether loading of the transaction value of medical equipments imported by the appellants by 20% based on instance of one import by a third party is justified specially when the show cause notice did not contain a proposal to load the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of the imported goods under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Even though there was no proposal in the show cause notice for enhancing the declared value on the basis of any contemporary imports, the Deputy Commissioner relying on an import made by Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Wardha of an identical CT Scanner loaded 20% to the value declared by the appellant. Appeal was filed by the importer which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the two conditions required under Rule 9(1)(c) for adding royalties and licence fee to the transaction value of imported goods are not available in the facts of the case. Such addition can be made only if (a) royal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 79,74,854. In the case of Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences declared value was US $ 3,07,464 (CIF) and the declared assessable value was Rs. 1,31,97,892. The terms of delivery in the two cases are different. On the direct import by the third party the appellant is entitled to a commission of US $ 52,000. Apart from the above, the third party is a duty free customer whereas the appellant had to pay duty at the rate of 25% plus 5% CVD on the declared value. Total customs duty came to Rs. 24,92,142. It was under these circumstances that there is a variation in the price of imported goods in these two transactions. The appellant would further submit that after paying customs duty and after adjustment for the ocean freight, insurance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Article VI provides for lump sum consideration of 910,000 US $ in consideration of the obligation undertaken by YMS under the said agreement. Admittedly, the appellants had imported only parts/components. Technical Collaboration Agreement does not relate to manufacture of parts/components. 9.On going through the other clauses of the agreement we do not find that licence fee is paid as a condition relating to sale of the imported goods. Under these circumstances, we hold that the authorities below have committed an error in adding the know-how fee to the value of the parts/components imported taking recourse to Rule 9(1)(c). The appellant has correctly relied on the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Mando Brake Systems. 10.On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
