TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development. Modi Xerox had further agreed to pay royalty at the rate of 5% to M/s. Rank Xerox towards technical assistance, grant of licence and to furnish improvements during the tenure of the agreement. Modi Xerox are also importing raw material viz. components, consumables and capital equipment from M/s. Rank Xerox and its associates. Due to the financial and technical tie up with M/s. Rank Xerox, the revenue authorities were of the view that invoice value of such imports could not be assessed under Section 14(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, but the same had to be determined under Section 14(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. No evidence under Rule 3(a) to 3(d) was available, as the respondent was the exclusive importer. Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not applicable and the value, therefore, had to be determined under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. Article 4.1 of Technical Knowhow Agreement even grants, among other things, basic design and patent to Modi Xerox in the back drop of the lump sum payment of Rs. 87.87 lacs towards supply of knowhow fee and Rs. 43.63 lacs as engineering fee for ancillary development and 5% on account of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 14(1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, mutuality of interest was not necessary. The revenue authorities had fully observed the principles of natural justice. He fairly stated that there is no international price list. He has referred to technical agreement. He argued that for technical knowhow fee has been paid to Rank Xerox. He fairly stated that no detailed show cause notice was given to the respondent and full opportunity will be given. Mr. Nair has referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Intercom Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1987(28) E.L.T. 458. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 5. Shri Ravinder Narain, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, has read out the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 14(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and further stated that pari materia of both the sections is the same. He has argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Atic International reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 323 is fully applicable. He has argued that there is no mutuality of interest. Modi Xerox has got no int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturers of motor cars in India in collaboration with Suzuki Motor Company Ltd., Japan (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki ). The two parties have entered into three agreements: (1) Joint Venture Agreement: Under this agreement Suzuki acquired 26% equity shares in Maruti as also proportional representation on the Board of Directors of Maruti. (2) Licence Agreement: Under this Agreement, Maruti acquired the right and technical knowhow to manufacture cars and their components in India to the patents, designs and specification of Suzuki on payment of lumpsum royalty of $ 24/-lakhs plus 39% running royally. (3) Purchase and Supply Agreement: This Agreement related to import of SKD/CKD packs and complete vehicles from Suzuki Japan. In the background of royalty payments, the Assistant Collector loaded the invoice prices of SKD/CKD packs and complete vehicles imported by Maruti from Suzuki by 1%, for the purpose of assessment of customs duty. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that the loading was not called for and that the invoice price was acceptable as the basis for assessment under Section 14(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The department is now in appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment contended that since Maruti was the only buyer of Suzuki SKD/CKD Packs and complete vehicles, the price charged could not be said to be the one at which the goods were ordinarily sold or offered for sale . The respondents contended that the same models of Suzuki cars were marketed in Japan also, though not in very large numbers. The learned representative of the department stated that even so it was a fact that there was no multiplicity of international buyers for the goods. We put the following Supreme Court judgments to the learned representative of the department in which the brand name owner was the sole buyer of the goods and yet the manufacturer s price to the brand name owner was accepted as the basis for assessment so long as the price was a fully commercial and the dealings were at arm s length: 1. 1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 (S.C.) - Cibatul Ltd. 2. 1985 (22) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) - Food Specialities Ltd. 3. 1986 (23) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) - Moped India Ltd. The learned representative of the department stated that the above judgments, as also of the one in Atic Industries case (paragraph-4 supra), were on valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted goods." The facts of the present matter are similar. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., the revenue had gone in appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court, The Hon ble Supreme Court had confirmed the findings of the Tribunal and had rejected the appeal of the Revenue. Judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced below :- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 42-44 OF 1988 Collector of Customs, Bombay ....... Appellant v. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon ...... Respondent ORDER These are appeals under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 from the decision of the Tribunal. We have examined the provisions of the Act and the facts found by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was right in its conclusion. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Sabyasachi Mukharji, J) Sd/- (S. Ranganathan, J) Sd/- (K.N. Saikia, J)" New Delhi April 26, 1989. During the course of the arguments, the learned SDR has pleaded for the remand of the matter. The matter had already been remanded once. We do not find any justification in reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
