INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 1046, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Arguments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
v.
  COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
(Civil Appeal No.2498 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Customs Act, 1962 – ss.111,  130E – Customs Tariff Act, 1975
– s.XVI of the First Schedule – Appellant imported certain goods –
It was alleged that appellant had intentionally not declared the true
and correct value and correct classification of imported equipments
which were meant to be interconnected to perform a function of
‘Head End’ – A show cause notice was issued to the appellant –
The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) held that
declaration made by the appellant was false in material particular
and redetermined the value of all the goods imported – Aggrieved,
the appellant filed customs appeal before the Tribunal – Appellant
contended that there was no undervaluation of the goods and Note
4 to s.XVI of the First Schedule to the Act, 1975 had no application
in the matter – Appellant also submitted that classification of the
imported goods was to be under 8525 and not under 8543 –
Tribunal held goods would be covered by heading 8525 and not
heading 8543 and further held that there was mis-declaration
established in respect of valuation, therefore, appellant was liable
for the penalty – On appeal before the Supreme Court, the
appellant contended that certain activities like engaging the
services for appropriate software etc. were
post-import activities
and could not be taken into account for the purposes of valuation
– Held: The facts disclose that out of 19 items indicated in the Bill
of Entry, only 8 items were physically presented while the rest were
already embedded in the main unit – These facts reflected that
individual components were intended to contribute together and
attain clearly defined functions as dealt with in Note 4 of s.XVI and
also indicated that software that was embedded through cards in
the main unit was not any post-importation activity – Therefore, the
value of the software was rightly included – The Department was
right in invoking principle under said Note 4 and considering the
imported items as part of one apparatus to be classifiable under
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 1046
      1046
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
the heading appropriate to the function – Thus, the view taken by
Tribunal affirmed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  It must be stated that the finding of the Tribunal
that the imported goods would be classifiable under Tariff Item
8525 and not under 8543, has not been challenged by the
respondent.  Thus, insofar as the issue of classification is
concerned, the question is whether the items imported ought to
be considered individually or whether the treatment given by
the Department, with the aid of Note 4 to Section XVI was
correct.  Note 4 appears in Section XVI of the First Schedule to
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. [Para 11] [1057-D-F]
2. It is a matter of record that after considering the
purchase order in the instant case, the Tribunal found that apart
from supply of equipment, necessary software had to be
embedded in the equipment before the supply was effected.  The
facts also disclose that out of 19 items indicated in the Bill of
Entry, only 8 items were physically presented while the rest were
already embedded in the main unit.  These facts are not only
reflective that the individual components were intended to
contribute together and attain a clearly defined function as dealt
with in Note 4 of Section XVI as stated above, but also indicate
that software that was embedded through cards in the main unit,
was not any post-importation activity.  The value of the software
and the concerned services were therefore rightly included and
taken as part of the importation. [Para 14] [1062-E-G]
3. The facts on record as stated above further disclose that
the Department was therefore right in invoking principle under
said Note 4 and considering the imported items as part of one
apparatus or machine to be classifiable under the heading
appropriate to the function.  The submission advanced by the
Appellant in that behalf therefore has to be rejected.
[Para 15] [1063-A]
4. Rule 9(1)(b) of Customs Valuation (Determination of
Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 as quoted in the decision
in Toyota Kirloskar case shows that the value in respect of
“materials, components, parts and similar items incorporated in
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
the imported goods” has to be added while determining the
transaction value. Said Rule 9 is almost identical to Rule 10 of
the Customs Valuations (Determination of Value of Imported
Goods) Rules, 2007.  Thus, even if the governing rule is taken to
be Rule 9 of 1988 Rules, there would be no difference in the
ultimate analysis. [Para 16] [1063-B-C]
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Chennai v. Toyota
Kirloskar Motors P. Ltd.  2007 (213) ELT 4 (SC) :
(2007) 5 SCC 371 : [2007] 7 SCR 94 ; Essar Gujarat
Limited (1997) 9 SCC 738 : [1996]  8 Suppl.  SCR  757
– relied on.
Commissioner of Customs  v.  Multi Screen Media Pri-
vate Limited  2015 (322) ELT 421 (SC) :  (2015) 16
SCC 263; Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v.
Essar Steel Ltd. 2015 (319) ELT 202 : (2015) 8 SCC
175 :  [ 2015] 4 SCR 1062 ;  Commissioner of Customs
(Import), Mumbai v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2015 (320)
ELT 42 (SC) : (2015) 14 SCC 750 ; Commissioner of
Customs, New Delhi v. Prodelin India (P) Ltd. 2006 (202)
ELT A130 : (2006) 10 SCC 280 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR
678  – referred to.
SET India Pvt. Ltd.  v.  Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
2003 (152) ELT 190 (Tribunal – Mumbai)
–  referred to.
Case Law Reference
2003 (152) ELT 190
referred to
Para 7
(2015) 16 SCC 263
referred to
Para 7
[2007] 7 SCR 94
relied on
Para 12
[1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 757
relied on
Para 12
[2015] 4 SCR 1062
referred to
Para 13
(2015) 14 SCC 750
referred to
Para 13
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 678
referred to
Para 13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1049
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 2498
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order No.C/A/57743/2017 dated
09.11.2017 of the  Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
in Appeal No. C/51770 of 2016
 Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv., Monish Panda, Mrinal Bharat Ram, Ayush
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Shekhar Vyas, Nitya Rao,
B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This Appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arises out of Order No.C/A/57743/
2017 dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing Appeal No.C/
51770 of 2016 preferred by the appellant herein.
2. The basic facts leading to the issuance of Show Cause Notice
dated 27.06.2014 initiating proceedings against the appellant, as set out
in the Order under appeal are as under:-
“The appellant imported certain goods at air cargo complex, New
Delhi and filed Bill of Entry 2660085 dated 26.6.2003.  They
declared the goods as Multiplexor Satellite Receivers, test and
measurement equipment etc. and attached six invoices covering
19 items imported.  They indicated individual classification for the
various items under Chapter 84/85 of the Customs Tariff.  The
Bill of Entry was assessed as per declaration and applicable
customs duty was paid.  Subsequently, information was
received
from SIIB Air Cargo Complex Mumbai, that investigations had
been commenced against the appellant for import of similar goods
at Mumbai.  Accordingly, Provisional Assessment was been
ordered under Section 18 of the Customs Act.
2. The investigation undertaken at Mumbai revealed as follows:-
The importer had placed the order at UK for purchase of
equipments – one set for Mumbai and another set for Delhi.  Each
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
set of equipment, taken together constituted ‘Head End’ for cable
TV operations.  The ‘Head End’ was an equipment at a local TV
office that originates the cable TV services and cable TV modem
services to subscriber though Conditional Access System (CAS).
All imported equipments taken together contributes towards a
clearly refined function i.e. ‘Head End’ for cable TV operations.
The complete set of equipment together merits classification
under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8543 8999, in the light of
Note 4 to Section XVI.  Thus, it appeared that individual
classification indicated for 19 imported items amounts to
mis-declaration.  The search operation carried by SIIB, ACC,
Mumbai at the premises of importer further revealed that the
importer had also mis-declared the value of the imported
consignments at Delhi and Mumbai.  They had suppressed the
value of embedded software as well as value of services payable
to the foreign supplier for carrying out integration of the system
prior to shipment and provide complete commission and
installation services at the customers premises.  Further, it was
noticed that the purchase order placed by the importer was
revised to show as CIF instead of FOB.”
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, Show Cause Notice dated
27.06.2014 was issued by the Department stating inter alia :-
“18. In view of the above, it appears that the Importer had
fabricated documents by way of splitting of value
of the goods
and declared lesser value to the Customs Department with the
sole intention to evade payment of Customs Duties.  Therefore, it
appeared that the Importer had intentionally not declared the true
and correct value of the goods imported to the customs for the
purpose of payment of Customs Duty.  Further the cost of
services was to be paid separately by the Importer to their
supplier.  Hence, the Importer failed to make true declarations.
Therefore, the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.260085 dated
26.06.2003 filed at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi also appear to
be liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs
Act, 1962 due to their aforesaid act of omission and commission.
It also appears that they have rendered themselves liable for
penal action under Section 112(a) and/or Section 114AA of the
Customs Act, 1962.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
The appellant was thus asked to show cause why:
(a) the declared values should not be rejected under Rule 10A of
the erstwhile Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of
Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and the same should not be
redetermined under Rule 9(1)(e) (adding cost of services) of
the erstwhile Custom Valuation (Determination of Price of Im-
ported Goods) Rules, 1988;
(b) the invoice value of imported goods declared in the (Bill of
Entry as Rs.1,02,91,463/- should not be enhanced to
Rs.1,72,03,243/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lakhs Three
Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Three Only) for the purpose
of assessment under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read
with Rule 9(1)(e) of the erstwhile Customs Valuation
(Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and
the provisional assessment made under Section 18 of Customs
Act, 1962 should not be finalised accordingly.
4. According to the record, the appellant was given several
opportunities but no written submissions, in response to the Show Cause
Notice, were filed.  The facts on record also disclose that the
opportunity of personal hearing was also extended and the matter was
adjourned from time to time but the appellant did not avail the
opportunity of personal hearing1.  After considering the facts on record,
the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) by his order dated
29.12.2015 rejected the declaration by the appellant vide Bill of Entry
No. 260085 dated 26.06.2003.  It was observed
that the appellant had
intentionally not declared the true and correct value and correct
classification of imported goods.  The conclusion was drawn as under:-
“26. … …I find that in the instant case, the Noticee(s) made a
declaration at the time of filing of Bill of Entry that goods
imported by them vide Bill of Entry No. 260085 dated 26.06.2003
were different parts classifiable under different CTHs whereas
the goods under import were the complete equipment of
head-end classifiable under CTH 85438999 and the goods were
also declared undervalued, as discussed above.  Brigadier R
Deshpande (Retd.), Vice President, Technical of the importer had
admitted his awareness in his statement dated 10.07.2003 that
1Paras 16 and 17 of the Order dated 29.12.2015
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
software was embedded in the machine.  He in connivance with
the supplier of goods fabricated document by splitting the values
between the goods imported and the other services rendered by
the supplier in connection with the imported goods and as such, I
find that the declaration of the Noticee(s) was false in material
particular.  In view of above, I hold both the Noticee(s) are liable
to penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.”
The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) then redeter-
mined the value of all the goods imported under said Bill of Entry as
under:-
“(a)… …The value of all the goods imported under the said B/E
taken together is redetermined under Rule 9(1)(e) of the said Rules
as US $ 361633 CIF and consequently after loading 1% towards
landing charges and applying the relevant exchange rate, the
assessable value is determined as Rs.1,72,03,243/-(Rupees One
Crore Seventy Two Lakhs Three Thousand Two Hundred and
Forty Three Only) for the purpose of Section 14 of the Customs
Act, 1962 read with Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation
(Determination of Price of Imported Goods), Rules, 1988.
(b) The classification of all the components imported under the
B/E No.260085 dated 26.06.2003 taken together is determined
under CTH 85438999 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
(c) The provisional assessment made in respect of B/E No.260085
dated 26.06.2003 is finalized under Section 18 of the Customs
Act, on the basis of revised assessable value and classification as
ordered above.  Consequently, demand for differential duty
amounting to Rs.54,19,475/- is confirmed.  I order that the amount
of Rs.54,19,475/- deposited at the time provisional release of the
goods be appropriated towards the differential duty.
(d) The goods imported under B/E No.260085 dated 26.06.2003,
which were provisionally released on execution of P.O. bond for
Rs.1,72,03,242/-, are confiscated under Section 111(m) of the
Customs Act, 1962.  Since the goods are already released to the
party, they are ordered to pay redemption fine of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act,
1962 in lieu of confiscation thereof.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1053
The Order dated 29.12.2015 proceeded to impose penalty as
under:-
“(e) I impose a penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
only) on M/s. Indusind Media & Communication Ltd., Mumbai
under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
(f) I impose penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
on M/s. Indusind Media & Communication Ltd., Mumbai under
Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
(g) I impose a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
only) on Brigadier R. Deshpande (Retd.), Vice President, Technical
of M/s. Indusind Media & Communication Ltd., Mumbai under
Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
(h) I impose a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)
on Brigadier R. Deshpande (Retd.), Vice President, Technical of
M/s. Indusind Media & Communication Ltd., Mumbai under
Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
(i) The redemption fine and penalties may be recovered by en-
forcing the Bank Guarantee executed at the time of provisional
release of goods.”
5. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed Customs Appeal
Nos.51769-51770 of 2016 before the Tribunal.  It was submitted that
there was no undervaluation of the goods;  that the department had
incorrectly included the amount towards software and post import
services; and that Note 4 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to Customs
Tariff Act, 1975 (“the Act’, for short) had no application in the matter.  It
was alternatively submitted that the goods in question merited
classification
under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 8525 2019
as “transmission apparatus” and not under 8543 as contended by the
Department.  In response, it was submitted on behalf of the Department
that out of 19 items indicated in the Bill of Entry, only 8 items were
physically presented, as several cards were already assembled in the
main unit; that the appellant had not given proper description in the Bill
of Entry and the goods imported were complete ‘Head End’ and not
parts; that the charges covered by the relevant invoice amounting to US
$ 1,00,019 were rightly included since they pertained to charges where
the software covered by the invoice was already embedded in the
equipment and that the goods were rightly classified under 8543.
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1054
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
6. After hearing rival submissions, following issues were framed
by the Tribunal for consideration:-
“1. First is the classification of the imported goods – whether
8543 as ordered by the adjudicated authority or 8525 as claimed
by the appellant.
2. Second issue is of valuation – whether the value of software
already embedded in the equipment as well as service charges
are required to be included in the assessable value.”
7.  The Tribunal relied upon Note 4 to Section XVI and found that
though different equipments were ordered, they were meant to be
interconnected in such a way as to perform a common clearly defined
function which was to be ‘Head End’.  However, according to the
Tribunal, the goods would actually be covered by heading 8525 and not
by heading 8543.  For arriving at such conclusion, reliance was placed
on the decisions in SET India Pvt. Ltd.  vs.  Commissioner of
Customs, Cochin2and Commissioner of Customs  vs.  Multi Screen
Media Private Limited3.
While considering the issue regarding valuation, the purchase
order was relied upon, according to which, apart from supply of
equipment, necessary software had to be embedded in the equipment
before the supply was effected.  Relying on Sub-Rule (iii)  of Rule 10 of
the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules,
2007 (for short, ‘the 2007 Rules’) it was observed that since the
software was already incorporated in the imported goods,
the value of
the same was required to be added to the transaction value.
It was concluded:-
“19. In view of the mis-declaration established in respect of
valuation, the imported goods will be liable for confiscation under
section 111 of the Customs Act and the appellant will also be
liable for penalty.”
In the premises, by Order under appeal, the matter was remanded
to the adjudicating authority only for the purpose of recomputing the
differential duty in the light of its conclusion that the classification of
2 2003 (152) ELT 190 (Tribunal – Mumbai)
3 2015 (322) ELT 421 (SC) = (2015) 16 SCC 263
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1055
imported goods was to be under heading 8525 and not under heading
8543.
8. In this appeal, it has principally been submitted:-
 “A. The Imported Goods have been correctly classified by the
Appellant.
a. The following major components were imported by the
Appellant from Tandberg:
1. Multiplexers
2. Satellite receivers
3. Test and measurement
b. The following are the major components imported from other
supplier by the Appellant:
i.     CAM Modules – Aston and   Nagravision
ii.     Encoders
iii     Power Vu receivers – Scientific Atlanta
iv    Integrated receiver De-coder’s (IRD’s)  –  Purchased
from  the channels directly
v.   Encryption System -Nagravision
c. The Head End is the physical location in your area where the
television signal is received by the provider, stored, processed
and transmitted to their local customers (subscribters).
d. Undisputedly the Appellant being a Multi System Operator
(“MSO”) i.e. a cable network operator, receives encoded and
scrambled signals from Network Broadcasters.  The major
function of a Head End is to decode and unscramble, the
encoded and scrambled signals received from the Broadcast-
ers.  Such function admittedly could not be achieved without
Encoders, IRD’s, Power Vu Receivers and Encryption
System which were imported by the Appellant from other
suppliers.
e. Without these equipments working in conjunction  network, the
encoded and scrambled signals from Broadcasters could not
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS
LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
be received at the Head End (“Power Vu Receivers”) and
neither can they be decoded (Encoders and IRD’s) or
unscrambled (“Encryption System”) and thereafter could not
be broadcasted to the recipient/subscribers.  Therefore, the
intended function of a Head End could not be achieved
without Encoders, IRD’s, Power Vu Receivers and
Encryption System. These equipments admittedly were not part
of the imported consignment under dispute.  Admittedly these
equipment’s were imported separately from other suppliers.
f. Therefore, it can be concluded that the imported consignment
does not constitute a complete Head End and that each
component is to be classified under the relevant Chapter
Heading.”
and following principal question has been raised:-
“A. Whether the CESTAT has erred in failing to consider the
primary submission of the Appellant, that the 19 different items
imported by the Appellant under the Bill of Entry No.2660085
dated 26.06.2003 (‘BOE’) even if taken together do not form
one co posite ‘Head-end’ and that each item has an individual
function, and each item is to be classified under the Chapter
Heading it falls mainly CTH 85175010, CTH 85281299, CTH
85438910, CTH 84717010 and CTH 85249112.”
9. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned
Senior Advocate, also submitted:-
a)    The imports and Bill of Entry in the instant case were of the
year 2003 and 2007 Rules would not apply.
b)    Certain
activities like engaging the services for appropriate
software etc. as a result of which cards were embedded in
items of import, were essentially post import activities and
could not be taken into account for the purposes of valuation.
10. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondent refuted all the contentions of the appellant
and submitted that:-
a) Though the invoices in the case did mention individual items, the
dominant intent had to be seen whether the intended user
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
was of individual items or they were supposed to be used
collectively as part of one apparatus, in which event Note 4 to
Section XVI would provide guidance.
b) Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of
Imported Goods) Rule, 1988 (“the 1988 Rules”, for short)
being almost identical to Rule 10 of 2007 Rules, the reliance
was not misplaced.
c) In any case, Rule 10 of 2007 Rules which seeks to explain
certain matters is clarificatory in nature and the meaning would
be consistent with Rule 9 of 1988 Rules.
d) The submission that there were post import charges which were
getting included in the valuation was incorrect and what was
found as a fact was that all those software cards were
embedded in various parts when the import had taken place.
11. It must be stated that the finding of the Tribunal that the im-
ported goods would be classifiable under Tariff Item 8525 and not under
8543, has not been challenged by the respondent.  Thus, insofar as issue
of classification is concerned, the question is whether the items imported
ought to be considered individually or whether the treatment given by
the Department, with the aid of Note 4 to Section XVI was correct.
Note 4 appears in Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Act. Said
Section XVI has the heading:-
 “Section XVI- Machinery and mechanical appliances; electrical
equipment; parts thereof; sound records and reproducers, television
image and sound recorders and reproducers; and parts and
accessories of such articles”
Note 4 of Said Section XVI is to the following effect:-
“4. Where a machine (including a combination of machines)
consists of individual components (whether separate or
interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables
or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly
defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or
Chapter 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading
appropriate to that function.”
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
Tariff Item 8525 appearing in Chapter 85 is as under:-
“Transmission apparatus for radio telephony, radio-telegraphy,
radio-broadcasting or television, whether or not incorporating
reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing
apparatus; television, cameras; still image video cameras and other
video camera recorders; digital cameras.”
12. The Appellant is right in its submission that since the Bill of
Entry in the present case was of the year 2003, 2007 Rules would not
apply and that the appropriate Rules would be 1988 Rules.  Rule 9 of
1988 Rules was set out by this Court in Commissioner of Customs
(Port), Chennai v. Toyota Kirloskar Motors P. Ltd.4, while considering
the issue whether technical assistance fees in terms of Article 4 of the
Agreement between the parties had any direct nexus with importation
of goods.  It was observed:-
“25. The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred
upon it under Section 156 of the Act, made rules known as “the
Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods)
Rules, 1988”. Rule 3 provides for determination of the method of
valuation, stating:
“3. Determination of the method of valuation.—For the
purpose of these Rules,—
(i) the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value;
(ii) if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of
clause (i) above, the value shall be determined by proceeding
sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of these
Rules.”
26. How the transaction value would be determined has been laid
down in Rule 4 of the Rules, stating that the same shall be the
price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export
to India adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of
the said Rules. Rule 9 of the Rules provides for determination of
transaction value, stating:
“9. Cost and services.—(1) In determining the transaction
value, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable
for the imported goods,—
42007 (213) ELT 4 (SC) = (2007) 5 SCC 371
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1059
(a) the following cost and services, to the extent they are
incurred by the buyer but are not included in the price actually
paid or payable for the imported goods, namely—
(i) commissions and brokerage, except buying commissions;
(ii) the cost of containers which are treated as being one for
customs purposes with the goods in question;
    (iii) the cost of packing whether for labour or materials;
(b) the value, apportioned as appropriate, of the following goods
and services where supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer
free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with
the production and sale for export of imported goods, to the
extent that such value has not been included in the price actually
paid or payable, namely—
(i) materials, components, parts and similar items incorporated
in the imported goods;
(ii) tools, dies, moulds and similar items used in the production
of the imported goods;
(iii) materials consumed in the production of the imported
goods;
(iv) engineering, development, art work, design work, and
plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in India and
necessary for the production of the imported goods;
(c) royalties and licence fees related to the imported goods that
the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of
the sale of the goods being valued, to the extent that such royalties
and fees are not included in the price actually paid or payable;
(d) the value of any part of the proceeds of any
subsequent resale,
disposal or use of the imported goods that accrues, directly or
indirectly, to the seller;
(e) all other payments actually made or to be made as a condition
of sale of the imported goods, by the buyer to the seller, or by the
buyer to a third party to satisfy an obligation of the seller to the
extent that such payments are not included in the price actually
paid or payable.”
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
27. The issue before us is no longer res integra in view of the
decision of this Court in Commr. of Customs (Port) v. J.K. Corpn.
Ltd.wherein it is stated: (SCC para 9)
“9. The basic principle of levy of customs duty, in view of the
aforementioned provisions, is that the value of the imported
goods has to be determined at the time and place of importation.
The value to be determined for the imported goods would be
the payment required to be made as a condition of sale.
Assessment of customs duty must have a direct nexus with
the value of goods which was payable at the time of importation.
If any amount is to be paid after the importation of the goods is
complete, inter alia, by way of transfer of licence or technical
know-how for the purpose of setting up of a plant from the
machinery imported or running thereof, the same would not be
computed for the said purpose. Any amount paid for post-
importation service or activity, would not, therefore, come within
the purview of determination of assessable value of the imported
goods so as to enable the authorities to levy customs duty or
otherwise. The Rules have been framed for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of the Act. The wordings of Sections
14 and 14(1-A) are clear and explicit. The Rules and the Act,
therefore, must be construed, having regard to the basic
principles of interpretation in mind.”
28. Reliance, as noticed hereinbefore, however, has been
placed
by the learned Additional Solicitor General on Essar Gujarat Ltd.”
Thereafter, the decision of this Court in Essar Gujarat Limited5
was considered and it was observed:
“36. Therefore, law laid down in Essar Gujarat Ltd.  and J.K.
Corpn. Ltd. is absolutely clear and explicit. Apart from the fact
that Essar Gujarat Ltd. was determined on the peculiar facts
obtaining therein and furthermore having regard to the fact that
the entire plant on “as-is-where-is” basis was transferred subject
to transfer of patent as also services and technical know-how
needed for increase in the capacity of the plant, this Court clearly
held that the post-importation service charges were not to be taken
into consideration for determining the transaction value.
5(1997) 9 SCC 738
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
37. The observations made by this Court in Essar Gujarat Ltd.1
in para 18 must be understood in the factual matrix involved therein.
The ratio of a decision, as is well known, must be culled out from
the facts involved in a given case. A decision, as is well known, is
an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be
deduced therefrom. Even in Essar Gujarat Ltd.1 a clear distinction
has been made between the charges required to be made for pre-
importation and post-importation. All charges levied before the
capital goods were imported were held to be considered for the
purpose of computation of transaction value and not the post-
importation one. The said decision, therefore, in our opinion, is not
an authority for the proposition that irrespective of nature of the
contract, licence fee and charges paid for technical know-how,
although the same would have nothing to do with the charges at
the pre-importation stage, would have to be taken into consideration
towards computation of transaction value in terms of Rule 9(1)(c)
of the Rules.
38. The transaction value must be relatable to import of goods
which a fortiori would mean that the amounts must be payable as
a condition of import. A distinction, therefore, clearly exists between
an amount payable as a condition of import and an amount payable
in respect of the matters governing the manufacturing activities,
which may not have anything to do with the import of the capital
goods.”
13. The
aforesaid decision found that the Technical Assistance
Fee under Article 4 had direct nexus with post importation activities and
not with importation of goods.  That deduction was arrived at after
considering the individual facts and the scope of Article 4 which was to
the following effect:-
“4. Additional assistance
(a) At the licensee’s written request, the licensor may furnish the
licensee with manufacturing, engineering and other know-how
and information relating to the licensed products which are
not readily available in the licensor’s records but which the
licensor is willing to develop especially for the licensee, and
which shall be furnished through such documents and assis-
tance as designated at the discretion of the licensor from among
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
those stipulated in Appendix D attached hereto and any other
documents and assistance from time to time designated by
the licensor.
(b) In the event of the preceding para (a), the licensee shall pay
the licensor all fees, and all costs and expenses incurred by
the licensor in developing and furnishing such know-how,
information, documents and/or assistance.
(c) If the assistance rendered under para (a) hereof is technical
assistance or engineering assistance concerning the licensed
products, such assistance will be provided in accordance with
the procedures and conditions set forth in Appendix E attached
hereto.”
The subsequent decisions of this Court in Commissioner of
Customs, Ahmedabadvs.Essar Steel Ltd.6,and in Commissioner of
Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.7 have
followed the same principle that technical agreements involved in said
cases pertained to post-importation activity.  To similar effect was the
conclusion by this Court in an earlier decision in Commissioner of
Customs, New Delhi v. Prodelin India (P) Ltd.8that technical know
how fee was in respect of post-importation activities and could not be
added to the value of the imported goods.
14. It is a matter of record that after considering the purchase
order in the instant case, the Tribunal found that apart from supply of
equipment, necessary software had to be embedded in the equipment
before the supply was effected.  The facts
also disclose that out of 19
items indicated in the Bill of Entry, only 8 items were physically presented
while the rest were already embedded in the main unit.  These facts are
not only reflective that the individual components were intended to
contribute together and attain a clearly defined function as dealt with in
Note 4 of Section XVI as stated above, but also indicate that software
that was embedded through cards in the main unit, was not any post-
importation activity.  The value of the software and the concerned
services were therefore rightly included and taken as part of the
importation.
62015 (319) ELT 202 = (2015) 8 SCC 175
7(2015) 320 ELT 42 (SC) = (2015) 14 SCC 750
82006 (202) ELT A130 = (2006) 10 SCC 280
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
15. The facts on record as stated above further disclose that the
Department was therefore right in invoking principle under said Note 4
and considering the imported items as part of one apparatus or machine
to be classifiable under the heading appropriate to the function.  The
submission advanced by the Appellant in that behalf therefore has to be
rejected.
16. Rule 9(1)(b) of 1988 Rules as quoted above in the decision in
Toyota Kirloskar4, case shows that the value in respect of “materials,
components, parts and similar items incorporated in the imported goods”
has to be added while determining the transaction value. Said Rule 9 is
almost identical to Rule 10 of 2007 Rules.  Thus, even if the governing
rule is taken to be Rule 9 of 1988 Rules, there would be no difference in
the ultimate analysis.
17. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeal.
Affirming the view taken by the Tribunal, we dismiss this appeal, without
any order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan
                               Appeal dismissed.
 INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.v.   COMMR.
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]