TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profits by way of sale of imported components. There is no mention of any specific items of import or of any royalty or licence fee payable for imported goods. In this factual position, there is no legal requirement for adding the know-how fee to the value of any imported items and assessing these imported items to customs duty based on the added value as held in the case of Hyundai Motor (India) Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 81 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI]. Technical know-how fee charged in respect of post importation activities can not be included in the assessable value of the imported goods as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the of Prodelin India (P) Ltd. [2006 (8) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. No efforts has been made by the Department in the instant case to ascertain whether there was a price adjustment between the cost incurred by the appellant on account of royalty/licence fee and the price paid for imported items. The department has merely relied on the consideration clause in the Licence agreement only without establishing the fact that what was termed as royalty/licence fee was in fact not such royalty/licence fee but some other payment made or to be made as a condition pre-re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai and the Revenue filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority held as follows : In the present case, admittedly there is no third party import, and the SKD/CKD components imported from the related collaborator are proprietary in nature inasmuch as any third party is not free to import these goods. Hence know how supplied and the imported goods prima facie appears to be related. The lower authority has not examined the relevant provisions of the two agreements dated 15-12-1998 and 3-8-1999, nor the same has been brought on record to say that the know-how payment and the royalty made thereunder has no nexus to the imported goods. The collaborator are supplying the proprietary CKS/SKD components to the respondent along with the know how for a price. In such a case, the value declared for these imported goods cannot be said to be sole consideration of sale in the absence of a finding by the lower authority that the provisions of the agreement say so. Without the supply of licence fee by way of lump sum/running royalty the respondents cannot import the goods nor the same is of any use to them without supply of the neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of royalty under the Licence Agreement. But the essential point is that these payments were relatable directly to manufacture of goods in India and they had no nexus with import of goods from Japan, It is, therefore, not correct to load the import price on account of payment of royalties for local manufacture. The said decision of the Tribunal was challenged before the Apex Court and the appeal was dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the same case reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. A615 (S.C.). Therefore, in the present case also, the question of adding licence fee and running royalty to the value of the goods is not sustainable in law in the absence of any change in the wordings of the contract between the two parties and also in the absence of any change in the law relating to Customs Valuation. 3.2 Further, this Tribunal in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 364 had held that if in the case of a previous agreement, it had been held that enhancement of value of components imported from the same supplier for manufacture of car is not permissible, in the case of subsequent agreements, which are identical in all res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the royalty paid is in relation to the imported goods and, therefore, it is clearly a condition of sale for the imported goods. He relies on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) in support of his contention. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and we have also perused the licence agreement dated 15-12-1998 and 3-8-1999. We are of the view that as the issue lies in a narrow compass, the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of any pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for consideration. 5.1 As per the said agreement, as part of the consideration of the technical assistance and licence with respect to specific models of the cars to be manufactured, a lumpsum amount and a running royalty was required to be paid. The technical assistance was related to the engineering, design and development, manufacture, quality control, assembly, testing, sale and after-sales service of the Products and Parts . The product was the models of the Suzuki four-wheeled motor vehicles l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding that the agreement dated 2-10-1982 and the subsequent agreements dated 15-12-1998 and 3-8-1999 are identical in wordings and all the terms and conditions of the above agreements are the same except for the introduction of new models and difference in lump sum payments and royalty payments for these models. It is not the contention of the Revenue or the lower appellate authority that these agreements are different. In the case of agreement dated 2-10-1982, this Tribunal as well as the Hon ble Apex Court has held the view that licence fee and royalty payments cannot be loaded on to the value of the imported components, in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, in respect of subsequent agreements which are identical in wordings and scope, a different view cannot be taken. Thus, we find that the issue had already been settled in favour of the appellant in their own case by this Tribunal as also by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The other judgments relied upon by the appellant also support this view. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a different view now on the same subject matter which was disposed of earlier in favour of the appellant. The Revenue has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
