Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2019 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1723 - SC - CustomsMis-declaration established in respect of valuation of the goods - "transmission apparatus" - Technical Assistance Fee Under Article 4 - Valuation of imported goods under Rule 9 and 10(1)(c) - Post-importation activities - confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that after considering the purchase order in the instant case, the Tribunal found that apart from supply of equipment, necessary software had to be embedded in the equipment before the supply was effected. The facts also disclose that out of 19 items indicated in the Bill of Entry, only 8 items were physically presented while the rest were already embedded in the main unit. These facts are not only reflective that the individual components were intended to contribute together and attain a clearly defined function as dealt with in Note 4 of Section XVI as stated above, but also indicate that software that was embedded through cards in the main unit, was not any post-importation activity. The value of the software and the concerned services were therefore rightly included and taken as part of the importation. The facts on record as stated, further disclose that the Department was therefore right in invoking principle under said Note 4 and considering the imported items as part of one apparatus or machine to be classifiable under the heading appropriate to the function. The submission advanced by the Appellant in that behalf therefore has to be rejected. Rule 9(1)(b) of 1988 Rules as quoted above in the decision in Toyota Kirloskar [2007 (5) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT], case shows that the value in respect of "materials, components, parts and similar items incorporated in the imported goods" has to be added while determining the transaction value. Said Rule 9 is almost identical to Rule 10 of 2007 Rules. Thus, even if the governing Rule is taken to be Rule 9 of 1988 Rules, there would be no difference in the ultimate analysis. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Affirming the view taken by the Tribunal, we dismiss this appeal.
|