B. Ravichandran ORDER
B. Ravichandran, Member (T)
1. The appeal is against order dated 10.02.2017 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, New Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is regularly importing goods from Thailand, China and Philippines. The suppliers of these imported goods viz. parts used in the manufacture of car infotainment systems like semi-conductor components, etc, are related to the appellants. The foreign suppliers are subsidiaries of same parent entity and are related to the appellant in terms of Rule 2(2) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellants entered into a license agreement with M/s. Fujitsu Ten Limited, Japan on 30.05.2013. The said agreement allowed the appellant the right to use IPR and know how, for the manufacture of car infotainment system. The valuation of imported goods were examined by the Special Valuation Branch, New Customs House, New Delhi in terms of Circular dated 23.02.2001 of the Board. On completion of verification of various documents, the Original Authority held that royalty paid by the appellant to Fujitsu Ten Limited and Patent and Software usage fee paid are required to be added in the assessable value in terms of Rule 10 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
3. The appellants contested the above finding before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order held that the above charges are rightly includible in the assessable value and accordingly, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred this appeal.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the lower authorities erred in applying the provisions of Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, to the present imports. Drawing our attention to the statutory provisions, the ld. Counsel submitted that for addition of royalty in the admissible value, the said royalty should have been paid in relation to the imported goods and payment of royalty should be a condition for sale of the imported goods. These twin conditions have not been fulfilled in the present case. He further submitted that there is no clear nexus between the payment of fees by the appellant to the foreign supplier and the goods under import. He relied on various decided cases in support of his assertion.
5. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the loading of value attributable to software fee is not legally sustainable. The ld. Counsel submitted that Rule 10(1)(e) of the Valuation Rules covers all other payments made as a condition of sale of the imported goods. The software imported includes the application/operating software for the final product. They are not disputing the coverage of the valuation with reference to firmware/embeddedware already part of the imported goods. The ld. Counsel submitted a chart to reiterate that there were various software relating to functionality and display in the final product, which has no direct relation to the imported items. The payment of software fee to Japan Co. as "third party" does not satisfy the obligation of the exporters. The ld. Counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
6. Ld. AR supported the findings of the lower authorities. He submitted that the Original Authority examined in detail the scope of agreement, nature of payment made by the appellant and applicable statutory provisions under Valuation Rules. Since the royalty payment is determined based on the gross sales, which includes the cost of imported goods, the appellant cannot plead that there is no nexus between the royalty paid and the import. Similarly, the various softwares were used by the appellant, which are essential for making the imported components for integration as well as functionality. The submission of the appellant that operating/application software used in the final product has no relevance to the imported goods is misleading and erroneous. In the manufacture of electronic items, such compart........