Case: Commnr. Of Customs Vs. M/S. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd

3. The buyer is the manufacturer of brake liners and brake pads in India. On 8.9.1995, a technical assistance and trade mark agreement ("TAA" for short) was entered into between the respondent (buyer/licensee) and M/s T & N International Ltd., UK (foreign collaborator/licensor). Under the said agreement, the licensor claimed to be in possession of certain secret processes, formula and information. Under the agreement, the licensor agreed to permit manufacture of brake liners and brake pads (licensed products) by the licensee. Under the agreement, the licensor agreed to disclose the relevant secret processes, formula and information to the licensee. Under the agreement, the licensee was required to import/buy raw material and capital goods from the licensor. Under the agreement, the licensee was obliged to pay a licence fee along with royalty, based on the net sales value of licensed products sold, consumed or otherwise disposed of.4. Vide order dated 22.9.1999 the adjudicating authority held that, technical know-how fees and royalty were related to the imported goods and were a condition of sale for the import thereof and consequently, the adjudicating authority loaded the CIF value of the imported goods with the proportionate amount of know-how fees and royalty. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in CoC v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) ELT 609 (SC). This order was confirmed by the Commissioner (A). However, by the impugned order dated 12.2.2002, the Tribunal held that the know-how fees and the royalty payments stood related to the brake liners and brake pads to be produced in India and not to the imported goods. Hence, this civil appeal by the Department.

Court's reasoning:
18. Royalties and licence fees related to the imported goods is the cost which is incurred by the buyer in addition to the price which the buyer has to pay as consideration for the purchase of the imported goods. In other words, in addition to the price for the imported goods the buyer incurs costs on account of royalty and licence fee which the buyer pays to the foreign supplier for using information, patent, trade mark and know-how in the manufacture of the licensed product in India. Therefore, there are two concepts which operate simultaneously, namely, price for the imported goods and the royalties/licence fees which are also paid to the foreign supplier. Rule 9(1)(c) stipulates that payments made towards technical know-how must be a condition pre-requisite for the supply of imported goods by the foreign supplier and if such condition exists then such royalties and fees have to be included in the price of the imported goods. Under rule 9(1)(c) the cost of technical know-how is included if the same is to be paid, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of imported goods. At this stage, we would like to emphasis the word indirectly in rule 9(1)(c). As stated above, the buyer/importer makes payment of the price of the imported goods. He also incurs the cost of technical know-how. Therefore, the Department in every case is not only required to look at TAA, it is also required to look at the pricing arrangement/agreement between the buyer and his foreign collaborator. For example if on examination of the pricing arrangement in juxtaposition with the TAA, the Department finds that the importer/buyer has misled the Department by adjusting the price of the imported item in guise of increased royalty/licence fees then the adjudicating authority would be right in including the cost of royalty/licence fees payment in the price of the imported goods. In such cases the principle of attribution of royalty/licence fees to the price of imported goods would apply. This is because every importer/buyer is obliged to pay not only the price for the imported goods but he also incurs the cost of technical know-how which is paid to the foreign supplier. Therefore, such adjustments would certainly attract rule 9(1))(c).Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, we find that the adjudicating authority had not examined the pricing arrangement between the foreign collaborator and the buyer. It has only examined the royalty/TAA.20. Be that as it may, in the present case, on reading TAA we find that the payments of royalty/licence fees was entirely relatable to the manufacture of brake liners and brake pads (licensed products). The said payments were in no way related to the imported items. In the present case, no effort was made by the Department to examine the pricing arrangement. No effort was made by the Department to ascertain whether there exists a price adjustment between cost incurred by the buyer on account of royalty/licence fees payments and the price paid for imported items. No effort was made by the Department to ascertain enhancement of royalty/licence fees by reducing the price of the imported items. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In this case, the Department has gone by TAA alone. On reading TAA in entirety, we are of the view that there was no nexus between royalty/licence fees payable for the know-how and the goods imported for the manufacture of licensed products. The Department itself has invoked rule 9(1)(c).21. In the alternate, it has invoked rule 9(1)(e). This rule 9(e) cannot stand alone. It is a corollary to rule 4. There is no finding in the present case that what was termed as royalty/licence fee was in fact not such royalty/licence fee but some other payment made or to be made as a condition pre-requisite to the sale of the imported goods. It is important to bear in mind that rule 9 refers to cost and services. Under rule 9(1), the price for the imported goods had to be enhanced/loaded by adding certain costs, royalties and licence fees and values mentioned in sub-rules 9(1)(a) to 9(1)(d). It refers to "all other payments actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods." In the present case, the Department invoked rule 9(1)(c) on the ground that royalty was related to the imported goods, having failed it cannot fall back upon rule 9(1)(e) because essentially we are concerned with the addition of royalty etc. to the price of the imported goods. Further, in the present case, the Department has accepted the transaction value of the imported goods.Rule 4(3)(b) of the CVR, 1988 provides for an opportunity for the importer to demonstrate that the transaction value closely approximates to a "test" value. A number of factors, therefore, have to be taken into consideration in determining whether one value "closely approximates" to another value. These factors include the nature of the imported goods, the nature of the industry itself, the difference in values etc.. As stated above, rule 4(3)(a) and rule 4(3)(b) of the CVR, 1988 provides for different means of establishing the acceptability of a transaction value. In the case of Matsushita Television (supra) the pricing arrangement was not produced before the Department. In our view, the Consideration Clause in such circumstances is of relevance. As stated above, pricing arrangement and TAA are both to be seen by the Department. As stated above, in a given case, if the Consideration Clause indicates that the importer/buyer had adjusted the price of the imported goods in guise of enhanced royalty or if the Department finds that the buyer had misled the Department by such pricing adjustments then the adjudicating authority would be justified in adding the royalty/licence fees payment to the price of the imported goods. Therefore, it cannot be said that the consideration clause in TAA is not relevant. Ultimately, the test of close approximation of values require all circumstances to be taken into account. It is keeping in mind the Consideration Clause along with other surrounding circumstances that the Tribunal in the case of Matsushita Television (supra) had taken the view that royalty payment had to be added to the price of the imported goods.