Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Rule 9(1)(e) Under Customs Valuation Rules

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 16.04.2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Rule 9(1)(e) Under Customs Valuation Rules

​​ ​​   ​​ ​ ​​​  ​ ​

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs. M/s J.K. Corporation Limited. This case revolved around the valuation of imported goods and the applicability of customs duty, particularly in the context of a collaboration agreement involving the import of machinery and technical know-how. The judgment clarified key aspects of customs valuation under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.

Background of the Case

M/s. Orissa Synthetics Limited, a division of J.K. Corporation Limited, entered into a collaboration agreement on November 18, 1999, with M/s. Samsung Company Limited and M/s. Cheil Synthetics Inc., both based in Korea. The agreement was divided into two parts:

1. Part-A: Pertained to the licensing, know-how, and technology transfer, for which J.K. Corporation agreed to pay a lump sum of USD 1,400,000.
2. Part-B: Covered the supply of equipment, including plant and machinery necessary for manufacturing polyester-oriented yarn, with a price of USD 3,486,000 + DM 12,000,000 + JPY 8,850,000,000.

Pursuant to this agreement, J.K. Corporation imported plant and machinery manufactured by the Korean companies. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch, ruled that the amounts mentioned in both parts of the agreement should be combined for customs valuation purposes, as the payment for technical know-how was deemed a precondition for the sale of the equipment.

Legal Proceedings

The decision of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by J.K. Corporation, leading to a series of appeals:

1. First Appeal: The Commissioner of Customs dismissed J.K. Corporation’s appeal, upholding the Assistant Commissioner’s decision.
2. Second Appeal: The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed J.K. Corporation’s appeal and remitted the matter for a fresh decision, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Bhubaneswar, Orissa (2000).
3. Third Appeal: The Deputy Commissioner of Customs reaffirmed the original decision, stating that the two parts of the agreement were complementary and interdependent.
4. Fourth Appeal: The Commissioner of Customs overturned the Deputy Commissioner’s decision, ruling that the Supreme Court’s decision in TISCO was applicable and that the value of technical know-how should not be added to the assessable value of the imported goods.
5. Final Appeal: The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Supreme Court, leading to the judgment delivered on February 2, 2007.

Key Legal Issues

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether customs duty should be levied on the purchase price of imported goods by adding the value of the license and technical know-how fees.

The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. These provisions govern the valuation of imported goods for customs duty purposes. Specifically, Rule 9(1)(e) states that “all other payments actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods” should be added to the transaction value.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, along with the interpretative notes to Rule 4. The Court emphasized the following points:

1. Valuation of Imported Goods:
   • The assessable value of imported goods must be determined at the time and place of importation.
   • Payments made for post-importation services or activities, such as technical assistance, are not included in the assessable value.
2. Interpretative Notes:
   • The interpretative notes to Rule 4 explicitly exclude charges for post-importation activities, such as construction, erection, assembly, maintenance, or technical assistance, from the assessable value.
3. Separate Identifiable Amounts:
   • The payment of USD 1,400,000 for technical know-how was a separate and identifiable amount, not related to the fabrication or design of the imported plant and machinery.
4. Precedents:
   • The Court distinguished the present case from earlier judgments, such as Essar Gujarat Limited vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad and Mukund Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai, where the license fees were deemed a precondition for the sale of the imported goods.
   • The Court found the TISCO judgment to be directly applicable, as it clarified that post-importation charges should not be included in the assessable value.
5. Final Decision:
   • The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the value of the license and technical know-how fees should not be added to the assessable value of the imported goods.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for businesses involved in importing goods and entering into collaboration agreements:

1. Clarity on Customs Valuation:
   • The judgment provides clear guidelines on what constitutes the assessable value of imported goods, emphasizing the exclusion of post-importation charges.
2. Impact on Collaboration Agreements:
   • Businesses entering into agreements involving both technical know-how and equipment supply must ensure that payments for post-importation services are separately identifiable to avoid additional customs duty.
3. Legal Precedents:
   • The judgment reinforces the principles established in the TISCO case, providing a strong precedent for similar disputes in the future.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs. M/s J.K. Corporation Limited is a landmark decision that clarifies the scope of customs valuation under Indian law. By distinguishing between pre-importation and post-importation charges, the Court has provided valuable guidance for businesses and legal practitioners navigating the complexities of customs duty assessments. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear and precise drafting in collaboration agreements to ensure compliance with customs regulations and avoid unnecessary financial liabilities.

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com