Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) free training, technical, mechanical and in the field of electronic communication to PIPL, India staff;

(b) frequent visit of M/s PC USA's technical experts to India to guide the PIPL staff and solve customer technical problems;

(c) supply of specialized fixtures free of cost for quality assurance of the material fabricated in India;

(d) supply of electronic test gear free of cost for assembly, testing and alignment of feeds in India;

(e) design drawings, fabrication drawings, assistance to modify design and fabrication drawings to suit the material available in India;

(f) approval of products manufactured in India in the initial stage;

(g) respond to day-to-day technical queries raised by M/s PIPL, India and

(h) providing detail design drawings for manufacture of dyes in India for on-going indigenisation program and future exports.

He further submitted that despite a categorical reply by the respondent, which clearly shows that the technical fee of US $ 2,58,000 was paid towards the operation of different type to be performed in India and has nothing to do with the price of the imported goods, the original authority took the view that the technical assistance provided by PC, USA to the respondent is not merely for marketing or management of imported goods but was essential for assembly/production of the end product by using imported goods. It was further held that the supply of electronic test gears and specialized fixtures has been stated to be free of cost whereas the technical service fee was paid for these items also. Further M/s PC USA and Tata Advance Material Ltd., Bangalore were having collaboration agreement and M/s Tata Advance Material Ltd. which further shows indirect control over M/s PIPL India by M/s PC USA. It was held by the original authority that the amount paid as technical service fee, being the consideration for technical know-how and was includible in the value of the imported goods in terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Rules. Since according to the adjudicating authority no separate break-up for consultation or training had been given by the respondent, the appellant was loaded to the import value worked out to 10% of the invoice value of the goods imported by the respondent from M/s PC USA.