Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)
Daewoo Motors India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 9 November, 1999 cites

Collector Of Customs vs Maruti Udyog Limited on 24 December, 1986

This view has been upheld by Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 1989 (22) ECR 482. Mutuality of interest between appellant and Daewoo Motors does not exist, as seen from the facts of this case. So the price of the goods imported as shown in the documents of import, as held by the adjudicating authority, should be taken as the assessable value for the purpose of computation of duty under Customs Tariff Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Atic Industries Limited on 22 June, 1984

6. As far as relevant for this case, Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, inter alia, provides that for the purpose of Customs Tariff Act whereunder duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold in the course of international trade where the seller and buyer have no interest in the business of each other. So it is to be seen whether the appellant and their foreign collaborator have interest in the business of each other. Interest of one in the business of the other is not sufficient to discard the price at which the goods are sold for finding out the assessable value. There must be mutuality of interest. Nothing is in evidence to show that the appellant has any interest in the business of the foreign collaborator. No submission was made before us on behalf of the respondent that the appellant has any participation in the equity of Daewoo Motor or that the appellant could nominate any one to the Board of Directors of the foreign collaborator. In the absence of even an allegation of mutuality of interest, the Commissioner was clearly in error in coming to the finding quoted above. The law on this point was clearly stated by this Tribunal in Collector of Customs v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 1987 (28) E.L.T. 390 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Atic Industries Ltd., 1984 (17) E.L.T. 323 as one sided interest is not enough, there should be mutuality of interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 132 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Collector Of Customs(Preventive), ... vs M/S. Essar Gujarat Ltd., Surat on 19 November, 1996

7. Learned Departmental representative vehemently advanced an argument that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Essar Gujarat Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 applies to the facts of this case and 11.8 million US $ should be added to the value of the goods imported for assessment of customs duty. Though this point was not dealt with by the appellate authority in the impugned order, since this point took considerable time in the course of the argument, we think it necessary to refer to it. In the case before the Supreme Court contract was entered into between seller and purchaser for the sale of a Direct Reduction Iron Plant. One of the conditions was that purchaser should obtain licence from M/s. Midrex USA for use of midrex process and patent which was necessary to operate the plant. Without getting the licence from M/s. Midrex the plant could not be operated. So the purchase of the plant alone would not have given the purchaser any right to operate the same. In this situation, the Court held that the amount paid to M/s. Midrex to secure the right to operate the machinery should be added to the value of the machinery. In the instant case the payment for the licensed information and patent is to manufacture and assemble vehicles and other components in India. Payment had nothing to do with the working of the plant. The lump sum payment had no connection whatsoever on the working of the capital goods imported. This circumstance distinguishes the facts of Essar Gujarat Ltd. from the present one. So the lump sump payment cannot be loaded to the value of imported parts, components or spares.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Limited vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 13 October, 1997

2. In arriving at the above order, the Assistant Commissioner examined the question of nexus between price of imported goods to payment of lump sum on transfer of know-how as well as on running royalty. On this issue the finding was that there is no nexus between lump sum payment which was for getting licences to use the information and royalty was payable on the value of end-product manufactured in India using the information. Influence on the prices of imported goods on account of relationship between the appellant and foreign collaborator was also examined. It was found that records do not establish any such influence relying on the decision of CEGAT in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1