Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. After examining the records, we note that, in all these cases, the appellants imported components/raw material for the manufacture, in India, of final products by making use of the technical know-how provided by the suppliers against payment of lumpsum fees by the importers. In a few cases, the technical know-how fee paid by the importers to the suppliers of components/raw material was a consideration for technical assistance in the setting up of the manufacturing plant also. In some cases, what was paid by the importer to the supplier of components/raw material for technical know-how for the manufacture of finished goods in India was a royalty which was paid periodically as a percentage of the net sale proceeds of the finished goods. In all cases, the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) of the Department took the stand that the technical know-how fee/royalty paid by the importers to their technical collaborators abroad had a relation to the imported goods and that such payment had been made as a condition of sale of such goods and, therefore, under Rule 9(1)(c) ibid, the amount is required to be included in the assessable value of the goods. The SVB accordingly directed finalization of the provisional assessments in respect of the imported goods. The importers were aggrieved by such decision of the Deputy Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Customs (SVB). They maintained that the technical know-how fee/royalty paid by them to the suppliers of the imported goods had no relation to such goods and that the transfer of technical know-how was not a condition of sale of such goods. On this basis, the SVB orders were taken in appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appeals of some of the present appellants were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter's orders were taken in appeal to this Tribunal by the department and such appeals of the department were disposed of by this Bench as per Final Order Nos. 278 to 313/2002 dated 18.3.2002, whereby the matters were remanded for de novo consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). Pursuant to such remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed fresh orders against the assessees, which are presently under challenge before us in Appeal Nos. C/153/2003, C/174/2003, C/221/2003, C/238/2003, C/10/2004 and C/242/2004. The appeals filed by M/s. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd., M/s. GEC Alstom Ltd., M/s. Alstom Ltd. and M/s. Boss Profiles Ltd. against the SVB decision were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and consequently their appeals are also before us [C/07, 189, 241 and 139/2004].

5. In the case of M/s. HSI Automotive Ltd., raw materials were imported by the assessee for the manufacture of weather strips and low pressure hoses for automotive usage and a lumpsum (US $ 2,00,000) was paid as technical know-how fee to the raw material supplier M/s. HIS Chemical Company, Korea under a Technical Assistance Agreement. In the case of M/s. Habonim Vaas Automation (P) Ltd. actuators (components) were imported from M/s. Habonim Vaas Automation (P) Ltd., Israel by the appellants for manufacture of industrial valves in India and a lumpsum equivalent to US $ 1,50,000 was paid by the importer to the supplier as consideration for technical know-how and assistance. In the case of M/s. Gem Telegron Switchgears (P) Ltd., they had imported components from M/s. Telegron, Spain for the manufacture of Cam switches in India and a lumpsum equivalent to Rs. 3.52 millions was paid to the Spanish company by the assessee as consideration for the technical know-how provided by the former. Further, the assessee also paid royalty to the Spanish company @ 5% of the net proceeds of domestic sales of the licensed product and @ 8% of the net proceeds of the export sales of the product for a period of 5 years in terms of the relevant Technical Collaboration Agreement. In the case of M/s. TVS R & M, the assessee had imported capital goods, components and parts from M/s. Reichle De Massari, Switzerland for the manufacture, in India, of a range of modules meant for telecom industries and a lumpsum of SFR 50,000 was paid by the importer to the supplier as consideration for technology transfer under the relevant agreement. In the case of M/s. Hi Tech Arai Ltd., the assessee had imported capital goods and raw materials from M/s. Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd., Japan and M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan, for the manufacture, in India, of various licensed products and, under a Technical Collaboration Agreement, the assessee had paid US $ 19,25,000 to M/s. Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd., Japan towards technical know-how provided by the latter. In the case of M/s. D.M. Walls Co. (P) Ltd., the assessee had imported capital goods and certain finished goods [aluminum composite panels] from M/s. Dae Myung Wall Systems Co. Ltd., Korea and M/s. Dae Myung Hwa Sung Co. Ltd., Korea for the purpose of manufacture, in India, of the licensed products and a technical know-how fee of US $ 2,00,000 and a 'design and drawing fee' of US $ 6,00,000 and an 'engineering fee' of US $ 1,00,000 were paid to the supplier under the relevant Technical Collaboration Agreement. In the case of M/s. GEC Alstom Ltd., they had imported parts and components for the licensed products, from M/s. GEC Alstom T & D, SA, France and a lumpsum of FF 60,000 was paid as technical know-how fee by the assessee to the foreign supplier. In the case of M/s. Alstom Ltd. they had imported components from a few foreign companies for the manufacture of transformers and vacuum circuit breakers in India and lumpsum payments were made to the suppliers towards technical know-how for such manufacture. In addition to such payments, royalties were also paid by the assessee to the suppliers of components @ 5% of the net proceeds of domestic sales of the licensed products and @ 8% of the net proceeds of export sales of the said products under the relevant Technical Collaboration Agreements. In the case of M/s. Simpson & Co. Ltd., they had imported, components from M/s. Perkins International Ltd., England for the manufacture of diesel engines in India and technical know-how fee of 1,00,000 Pounds was paid to the supplier in terms of the relevant Technical Assistance Agreement. Lastly, in the case of M/s. Boss Profiles Ltd., they had imported capital goods from an Italian company for the purpose of setting up a manufacturing plant in India and a lumpsum of US $ 20,00,000 was paid to the supplier as consideration for technical know-how and assistance provided for layout, erection, commissioning and start-up of the plant as also for the raw material preparation, extrusion, firing and finishing process.

We note that the apex Court's ruling in the above case is that technical know-how fee paid by an importer to his foreign collaborator in respect of post-importation activities is not includible in the assessable value of the imported goods under Rule 9(1)(c) of the CVR read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. This ruling is squarely applicable to all the fact situations in the present appeals.

12. In the case of Birla Tyres (supra), the assessee had paid Italian Lira 5,40,000,000 as a lumpsum to their technical collaborators in Italy as consideration for technical know-how in the form of basic engineering documentation etc., which was to be used in the manufacture of radial tyres in India. The Tribunal held that the know-how fee had relation only to the activity of manufacture of tyres in India and therefore it was not to be included in the assessable value of the machinery imported by them. The civil appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the apex Court vide 2002 (143) ELT A183 (SC). The decision of the Tribunal's larger Bench in S.D. Technical Service case (supra) and the decision of this Bench in Stahl case (supra) and Rane Nastech case (supra) are also in support of the appellants' case on fact situation 'A'.

15. We have also examined the case law cited by learned SDR. He has heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Essar Gujarat case (supra). We need only say that the case of Essar Gujarat Ltd. was clearly distinguished by the apex Court in Toyota Kirloskar Motor case and by the Tribunal's larger Bench in S.D. Technical Service case and in the case of Panalfa Dongwon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2003 (56) RLT 962 (CEGAT - LB). Learned SDR has argued that, where relationship in terms of Rule 2(2) between the buyer and the seller of the imported goods is established, the question whether technical know-how fee/royalty paid by the buyer (importer) to the seller (foreign collaborator) is liable to be added to the invoice value of the goods under Rule 9(1)(c) cannot be decided upon in terms of the case law cited by counsel. He has argued that, where such relationship is established, the case has to be dealt with in accordance with the ratio of the decision rendered by the apex Court in the case of Clariant (India) Ltd. (supra). But we have not found any ruling in that case to the effect that, where the above kind of relationship is established between the buyer (importer) and the seller, the technical know-how fee/royalty paid by the former to the latter should necessarily be included in the assessable value of the imported goods or that one or both of the conditions attached to Rule 9(1)(c) can be dispensed with. Therefore the remand order passed by the apex Court in Clariant case cannot be considered to have laid down any ruling contrary to the one laid down by the Court in the case of Prodelin India (supra) and other cases cited by counsel. We also find that the landmark judgment of the apex Court in Associated Cement Companies case (supra), wherein drawings and designs were held to be "goods" liable to customs duty, cannot be cited as an authority for the proposition that any technical know-how fee/ royalty paid by an importer of capital goods/raw materials as consideration for such drawings and designs supplied by his foreign collaborator is linked to the import of such capital goods/raw materials. Learned SDR has also claimed support to his arguments from the apex Court's judgment in Matsushita Television & Audio India case (supra). We find that, in this case, under a Technical Assistance Agreement, the assessee (importer) was liable to pay royalty to their foreign collaborator for the technical assistance rendered by the latter by way of approval of bought-out components (imported). The apex Court found nexus between the royalty payment and the bought-out components imported by the assessee and, therefore, the royalty amount was held to be includible in the assessable value of the imported components. These facts are clearly different from the facts of the present appeals. None of the decisions cited by SDR is found to have advanced the Revenue's case on any of the fact situations.