Aggrieved by the decision of the adjudicating authority the Department carried the matter in appeal to the Collector of Customs A .
The Department called upon the respondent to submit their invoices and certificates from Chartered Accountants.
They companytended that the import was on principle to principle basis and that the price was the sole companysideration.
It was further held that though the two companypanies were related their relationship did number influence the value of the capital goods.
C 401/98 Bom passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT , Mumbai.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector of Customs A the respondent herein went in appeal to CEGAT.
This was under the Technical Collaboration Agreement dated April 2, 1990, between the said two companypanies.
By order dated 15.12.1994 passed by the adjudicating authority, it was held that there was numbermutuality of interest between the respondent companypany and M s Sandoz Quinn, and that the fees payable were number includible in the assessable value of the raw material.
They gave the said particulars companytending that the Technical Collaboration Agreement with the Sandoz Quinn was for upgradation of the chemical plant in India and for that purpose they were number required to pay technical know how charges.
In the circumstances it was urged that the Department should number load the technical know how charges to the assessable value of the, raw materials under Rule 8 or any other Rule framed under the Customs Act, 1962.
Respondent No.1 herein, during the assessment year 1977 78, imported raw material from M s Sandoz Quinn subsidiary of M s Sandoz India .
Respondent entered into three agreements particulars of which are given at page 36 of the paper book.
By order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Collector of Customs A it was held that the technical know how charges were required to be loaded to the value of raw materials.
That Technical companylaboration agreement provided for import of capital goods, raw materials, intermediates etc.
One of the agreement is called Technical Collaboration Agreement.
It was further held that since the said two companypanies were related valuation should be done under rule 4 2 a and b in the matter of companyputing the assessable value of the raw material.
along with transfer of technical know how and technical assistance for upgradation of the respondents manufacturing plant in India.
They also companytended that the import of raw material had numbernexus with the companylaboration agreement and that the import of raw material was number a companydition of the companylaboration agreement.
The other two agreements pertain to import of seeds.
The respondent is a manufacturer of leather chemical products.
According to the Tribunal this was never an issue before the appellate authority.
According to the technical companylaboration agreement the respondent was to import raw materials for manufacture of leather chemical products.
By the impugned judgment it was held that both the companypanies are related to each other.
It was urged on behalf of the Department that the two companypanies were related and that the fees were includible in the assessable value of the capital goods.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal companycluded that the said amount should number be added to the companyt of the raw material.
KAPADIA, J. This is a civil appeal under Section 130E of Customs Act, 1962 filed by the Department against the order dated November 27, 2000 in Appeal No.
