The Andhra Petrochemicals v. Collector of Customs, Madras

We have heard the counsel for both the parties at some length. We have been taken through the three agreements concern herein, the orders of the Government of India and the Judgment of the Tribunal under appeal. We arc inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the three agree- G ments represent a single transaction between the appellant and Davy Mckee (London) Limited, U.K. and that they are in the nature of a · package deal. It may be that all the equipment that was contemplated to be purchased abroad was not purchasi::d and that some of it was locally procured but what was imported was specially manufactured on the basis H 991 A of design and engineering specifications provided by Davy. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the agreement relating _, to purchase of equipment cannot be dissociated from the other agreements and that the authorities were right in loading the design and engineering charges at Pounds 11.50 Lakhs on to the value of the imported equipment B under Rule 9 read with Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Determination of Price of Imported (goods) Rules, 1988. The facts set out by the Tribunal in Paras 32 to 34 do support the conclusion arrived at by it. We 1see no reason to differ from the view taken by thi:: Tribunal. The appeal accord­ ingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. C G.N. Appeal dismissed . - ...