Back
CESTAT Chennai quashes addition for CET Power Solutions India Pvt Ltd on condition
The in Chennai has set aside an order that added payments made by CET Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. to its foreign collaborator to the of imported goods. In a decision rendered on , the Tribunal clarified that paid for and intellectual property cannot be automatically included in the customs value merely because the imported components are used to manufacture finished products.
The bench, comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., emphasised that the must establish both a between the and the imported goods and that payment of the was a of those goods. The ruling underscores a critical limitation on ’ power to expand the under the .
The factual matrix
CET Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit, manufactures power conversion systems and inverters. It imports components from related foreign entities in Belgium and China. Under a Term Sheet, Agreement and Licence Agreement with its foreign collaborator, the company pays a of 2% of the net selling price of finished products manufactured and sold in India using CE+T technology. Critically, none of the agreements made payment of a condition for purchasing or importing raw materials or components. The obligation arose only after manufacture and subsequent sale of the finished products.
The , however, sought to include the in the of the imported components on the ground that those components were used to produce the CE+T branded products. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, leading the company to appeal to the CESTAT.
The ’s argument and the Tribunal’s response
The contended that because the imported components were essential to manufacturing the finished goods that triggered the , a sufficient existed to justify addition under Rule 10(1)(c) or (e) of the . The Tribunal rejected this broad interpretation, holding that every payment remotely connected with imported goods cannot automatically be included in their .
The bench observed that Rule 10(1)(c) imposes two cumulative conditions: first, that the relates to the imported goods, and second, that payment of the is a of those goods. The failed to satisfy either condition. The agreements, the Tribunal noted, demonstrated that the payments were made towards technology transfer, intellectual property rights and , not as consideration flowing from the import transaction itself.
In a key passage, the Tribunal held:
“The Department has failed to establish that the paid by the appellant under the contractual agreements was an obligation intrinsically linked to sale of the imported goods. The agreements demonstrate that the payments were made towards technology transfer, intellectual property rights and and not as consideration flowing from the import transaction itself. Consequently, invocation of Rule 10(1)(e) and its Explanation is equally misconceived.”
Reliance on precedents
The CESTAT placed strong reliance on two decisions: and . In Ferodo India , the Apex Court held that cannot be added to the unless the demonstrates a clear with the imported goods and that the payment was a . The same principle was reiterated in Toyota Kirloskar , where the Court emphasised that the condition-of-sale requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement.
The Tribunal also cited its own earlier decision in , where it ruled that even where some exists between imported raw materials and payments, the Department must independently establish that payment of was a of the imported goods. Merely showing that the imported components are used in the finished product does not satisfy the .
Additional factors weakening the ’s case
The Tribunal noted that the appellant’s imports from related foreign suppliers constituted only a relatively small portion of its overall raw material procurement. This, the bench observed, further weakened the ’s claim that the was intrinsically linked to the imports. If a company buys the bulk of its raw materials from unrelated parties but pays only on finished goods sold, the cannot be said to be a condition for importing components from related parties.
The Tribunal concluded:
“The payments made by the appellant under the contractual agreements do not satisfy the statutory requirements contemplated under Rule 10(1)(c) or and therefore cannot be added to the of imported goods.”
Accordingly, the CESTAT set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal.
Legal implications for customs valuation disputes
This judgment is significant for importers, particularly those in technology-intensive sectors where payments are common. It reaffirms that cannot automatically assume that any paid in connection with the manufacture or sale of finished goods is part of the of imported components. The bears the burden of proving both the and the condition-of-sale requirement.
The decision also clarifies the limited scope of Rule 10(1)(e), which deals with royalties and licence fees. The Tribunal made clear that the Explanation to that rule does not expand its reach beyond what the statutory language permits. Importers can take comfort that and IP licensing are not automatically considered part of the customs value.
Broader impact on practice
For customs practitioners, the ruling reinforces the need to carefully examine the contractual framework when challenging additions. The agreements should explicitly state that is not a condition for importation and arises only upon post-import sale or use. Companies should document that they are free to import components from any source without triggering liability.
The decision also highlights the importance of the ’s guidance in Ferodo India and Toyota Kirloskar , which remain the binding authority on this issue. Tribunals and lower authorities are expected to follow these precedents strictly.
Conclusion
The CESTAT Chennai’s judgment in the CET Power Solutions case provides a clear roadmap for assessing the includability of in the of imported goods. By insisting on proof of both and , the Tribunal has drawn a firm line against arbitrary expansion of customs value by the . For the legal community, this decision serves as a practical reminder that not every payment related to technology or IP can be swept into the without a direct link to the import transaction itself.
The appeal was argued by , Advocate for the appellant, and , Advocate for the respondent.
