1995 (3) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the revenue has succeeded in showing that the apparent is not the real and that the price shown in the invoices does not reflect the true sale price and so section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act was properly invoked?

Held that:- On an evaluation of the relevant clauses in the collaboration agreements and the attendant circumstances, we are of the view that the concurrent Judgments of the High Court at Bombay do not merit interference in this appeal as there existed no nexus between the lumpsum payment under the agreement for the technical know-how and the determination of the price for supply of CKD packs or spares.

The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench concluded that "the contention that the price quoted in the invoices tendered by Mahindra & Mahindra (respondents) does not reflect the correct price because a part of the value of imported packs and components was already received by foreign collaborator while determining the consideration of 15 million French Francs cannot be accepted", and "the collaboration agreement does not support the claim nor was there any material available to the Assistant Collector to warrant such a conclusion", and, therefore, resort to section 14(1)(b) of the Act and Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules is clearly incorrect and unsustainable and the "Assistant Collector was bound to accept the price mentioned in the invoices for the purpose of assessing the customs duty". Appeal dismissed.