9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Collaboration Contract (TCC) and other agreements dated 16.10.2016 with their principal in Japan. Since the import made by the respondent from the principal falls within the Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, the transaction value of such imports were examined by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) regarding the acceptability of transaction value. In their initial SVB order dated 16.07.08, passed after considering the TCC, it was decided to accept the transaction value of imports by the respondent from their principal. At the time of renewal of such SVB order after three years, the Dy Commissioner (SVB), vide his order dated 09.12.2011 decided to load the invoice value of Master Samples/Utility Models imported from their principal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application made to SVB. 4. The ld Counsel for the respondent argued that the loading of the transaction value in respect of Master Samples/Utility Models is not justified. Such amount is being paid to principal to recover the cost of development and technical assistance. He submitted that in the impugned order, such amounts have been considered to be in the nature of consideration for the right and license to manufacture such products in India. He also relied on various case laws to support his contentions. 5. We heard both sides. The dispute revolves around Article 19 of the Technical Collaboration Contract. For ready reference, the same is copied below: "Article-19 Consideration: In consideration for the right and license to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable as per the invoices issued at the time of import of such models. In view of above, we are of the view that the requirement of Rule 10(1) (e) are satisfied and hence, such payments made are required to be loaded on to the invoice value of Masters Samples/Utility Models. The Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have proceeded on the wrong understanding that such payments are by way of royalty which is paid in consideration for the technical assistance. 6. Next we consider the question whether such loading can be extended to imports already made for the period prior to the renewal of SVB order. Revenue has justified the demand for the past period by alleging that the respondent has mis-declared the answer to question No.20 of the SVB Qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
