Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) In the present case, the documents on record show that there are three different stages involved:
(i) Basic Design Package by UOP;
` (ii) Extended Basic Design Package by Toyo, Mitsui etc.; and
(iii) Detailed design by the supplier like Kobelco which is necessary for the manufacture of the equipment and is included in the cost of the equipment.
(f) The Basic Design Package (BDP) and the Extended Basic Design Package (EBDP) contain only the basic specifications of the nature of the equipment to be supplied. They are only in the nature of buyers assist and relating to the CCR-2 as a whole as opposed to imported equipments above. The BDP and EBDP are only in the nature of buyers assist and relate to the CCR-2 Unit as a whole as opposed to the imported equipment alone. About 26.5% of the equipment and materials component comprises of domestically manufactured/procured items, the specifications for which are also contained in the BDP/EBDP. The BDP and EBDP, in addition of the equipment, also relate to various other aspects such as plot plan including basic plant layout, civil work, buildings etc., which are not in any manner co-related to the manufacture of the imported goods.
(g) The finding that MRPL has not come up with any reasons as to why the payment of USD 300,000 was made to M/s. UOP and USD 63,40,000 was paid to M/s. FEC for the Basic Design Package and the Extended Basic Design Package carried out outside India is without any factual basis and contrary to the submissions of the appellant which have also been referred to in para(s) 23 to 23.4 of the impugned order itself.
(h) It is settled by various judicial decisions that the Basic Design for engineering package includes details such as the layout, the position of equipment, the specification of equipment in terms of volume, diameter etc., and, the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the erstwhile CVR, 1988 cannot apply to such basic design as they have only a remote connection with the engineering drawing and designs which are necessary for production of the imported equipment.

6. The learned Sr. advocate for the appellant-assessee made the following submissions in his rejoinder:

(a) MRPL had submitted an Off-shore Supply Contract bearing No. 9802-01 as required under Regulation 5 of the PIR. This refers to the Extended Basic Design (EBD) and the Basic Engineering Design (BED). When there is import of goods through the project import mechanism, there is no statutory requirement on the importer to submit separate and independent contracts with regard to basic design and extended basic design.
(b) Whether the basic design package from the licensor i.e UOP I-A and the extended basic design and engineering of CCR-2 from FEC are necessary for the production of imported goods?
(c) Whether the cost of USD 300,000 incurred for obtaining basic design package from the licensor i.e UOP I-A and USD 6,340,000 incurred for obtaining the extended basic design and engineering of CCR-2 from FEC are also costs incurred for the procurement of equipments of CCR-2 which were imported?
(d) Whether it is a case of rejection of a transaction value or a case of adjustment under Rule 9?