Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) UOP-IA provided the basic engineering, design and drawings and also flow diagrams, without which the fabrication work of off-shore equipments could not have been taken up and completed. Besides, all the design/drawings/specifications carried out by the Supplier as well as the vendors of the Supplier were subject to the review and approval of UOP-IA.
(f) The Licence Agreement could not have been given effect to without the Engg. Agreement between UOP-IA and MRPL. Thus, the BEDP flowing from the Engg. Agreement was like the ignition key to an automobile.

[Emphasis supplied]

(d) The Tribunal in the decision dated 10.5.2004 in the case of G. E. Plastics considered the scope of Rule 9 (1) (b) (iv) of CVR, 1988 and held as under:

6.It is the Revenues case that the process diagram and equipment specification supplied by M/s. GE Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. BV, Netherlands were vital for the preparation of detailed engineering drawings for the manufacture of the imported equipment and that is sufficient to attract the provisions of the Rule. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the enquiry documents were prepared on the basis of Basic Engineering Package. This reasoning of the Commissioner is not supported by the Rule. Rule does not take in such remote connection. The Rule permits inclusion of only engineering drawings, designs etc. necessary for the production of the imported goods. That is to say, the material in question should be directly necessary for the production of the imported goods. The gap between Basic Engineering Drawings and detailed drawing is vast. The one provides all the detailed inputs for undertaking manufacture. The other merely indicates the lay out, relative size etc. From the size specifications alone construction of engineering equipment is not feasible. From a perusal of the process chart, it is clear that it only indicated the layout and volume specifications of individual equipment. It is merely a sketch representation of the plant. It was not possible to manufacture equipment based on this. Further, if it were to be so, the appellant would not engage another engineering firm, namely, Davy Power Gas India Pvt. Ltd. for developing the detailed design/engineering drawing. The second requirement under the Rule is that the design work, drawing etc. should have been undertaken elsewhere than in India. We have already noted that what is attracted by the Rule are the detailed design work, drawing etc. undertaken by Davy Power Gas India Pvt. Ltd. That work was undertaken in India. And work undertaken in India is not attracted by the Rule. [Emphasis supplied] The Tribunal, in the facts of the said case came to the conclusion that Basic Engineering package supplied by the joint venture partner was not what was necessary for the manufacture of the equipment and what was necessary was undertaken in India.
(b) The value of certain goods and services meant for use in connection with the production and sale for export of imported goods requires to be added to arrive at the transaction value as per Rule 9(1)(b). In particular, the value, of engineering, development, art work, design work, and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in India and necessary for the production of the imported goods requires to be added.
(c) The Rule permits inclusion of only engineering drawing, design etc. necessary for the production of the imported goods. Rule does not envisage remote connection between engineering drawing, design etc and the imported goods. The gap between Basic Engineering Drawings and detailed drawing is vast. The one provides all the detailed inputs for undertaking manufacture. The other merely indicates the lay out, relative size etc. From the size specifications alone construction of engineering equipment is not feasible. Telling the manufacturer, the specification of what is being ordered is only in the nature of buyers assist. Cost incurred towards buyers assist cannot be included in the value of imported goods.
(a) As per the Agreement, UOP-IA provided the basic engineering, design and drawings and also the flow diagrams.
(b) The consortium of companies namely, TOYO, MITSUI an MITSUBISHI, have undertaken multiple roles such as off-shore designer, supplier of offshore equipments and coordinator of the entire activities relating to setting up of the CCR-2 unit.

(c ) The role of FEC as designer did not relate only to equipments /materials procured from offshore but also in respect of material procured within India and in preparing detailed design for the CCR-2 plant site.