Page 89 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PORT), KOLKATA v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. 479

simultaneous obligation that designs relating to post-importation activities
should also be obtained from same entity - It cannot be inferred that since
both obtained from same vendor, condition of obtaining designs etc., for post-
importation activities implicit in contract - Subject drawings and specifica-
tions did not relate to equipment imported and meant for post-importation
activities - No condition laid down that import of equipment were to be sup-
plemented by post-importation work - Rule 9(1)(e) of Customs Valuation (De-
termination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 cannot be automatically
applied to every import which has surface features of a turnkey contract - Rule
9(1) ibid not applicable - Order of Tribunal affirmed - Section 14 of Customs
Act, 1962. - An importer of equipment of a plant could always choose to obtain drawings
and designs for undertaking post-importation activities from an overseas consortium
supplying the equipment. This may confer on such arrangements attributes of a turnkey
contract, but that fact by itself would not automatically attract the “condition” clause
contained in Rule 9(1)(e) of the Valuation Rules. The provisions of Rule 9(1)(e) cannot be
automatically applied to every import which has surface features of a turnkey contract.
Just because different components of a contract or multiple contracts give the shape of
turnkey project to the imported items, without specific finding on existence of “condi-
tion” as contemplated in clause 9(1)(e), value of all these components could not be added
to arrive at the assessable value. Just because different components of a contract or multi-
ple contracts give shape of turnkey project to imported items, without specific finding on
existence of “condition” as contemplated in clause 9(1)(e), value of all these components
could not be added to arrive at the assessable value. Such an exercise would go against
the provisions of Interpretative Note to Rule 4, which is part of the Valuation Rules in
view of the provisions of Rule 12 thereof. [2015 (319) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.); 2000 (116)
E.L.T. 422 (S.C.) distinguished]. [paras 25, 26, 27, 28 ]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Andhra Petrochemicals v. Collector — 1997 (90) E.L.T. 275 (S.C.) — Referred ............................... [Para 13]
Collector v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. — 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) — Referred .................... [Paras 12, 20, 22, 23]
Commissioner v. Denso Kirloskar Industires Pvt. Ltd. — 2015 (324) E.L.T. 431 (S.C.)
— Referred ............................................................................................................................... [Paras 16, 27]
Commissioner v. Essar Steel Ltd. — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.)
— Distinguished .......................................................................................... [Paras 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27]
Commissioner v. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. — 2008 (224) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — Relied on .............. [Paras 16, 26]
Commissioner v. Hindalco Industires Ltd. — 2015 (320) E.L.T. 42 (S.C.) — Referred .......... [Paras 16, 27]
Commissioner v. J.K. Corporation Ltd. — 2007 (208) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) — Referred ............... [Paras 16, 27]
Commissioner v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. — 2007 (213) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.)
— Referred ............................................................................................................................... [Paras 16, 27]
Commissioner, Delhi Value Added Tax v. ABB Limited — (2016) 6 SCC 791 — Referred ........... [Para 13]
Mukand Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000 (120) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.) — Referred .............................. [Paras 11, 12]
Mukund Ltd. v. Commissioner — 1999 (112) E.L.T. 479 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................ [Para 12]
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2000 (116) E.L.T. 422 (S.C.) — Distinguished ........................................ [Paras 5, 16, 18, 19, 22, 27]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, for the Appellant.
Shri Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Aniruddha Bose, J.]. - The dispute in this appeal relates
to valuation under the Customs Act, 1962 of import of certain items made by the
respondent Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) under two contracts, Bearing
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  89