LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 991 · Decided: 06-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-
THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS 
FEBRUARY 6, 1997 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Customs Valuation Determination of Price of Imported (goods) Rules, 
1988. 
A 
B 
Rule 9 r/w 
~Import of equipment-Three separate agree-
C 
ments-Whether a single transaction and are package deal-Held, Tribunal 
was right in holding the agreement relating to purchase of equipment cannot 
be disassociated from other agreements-Hence the authorities were right in 
loading the design and engineering charges on to the value of the imported 
equipment. ' 
Clv1L APPELLATE JURISDIQTION : Civil Appeal No. 7351 of 
19!l3. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.93 of the Customs Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Custom Appeal No. 
C/1570 of 1992-A. 
E 
M. Chandrasekharan and C.N. Sree Kumar for the Appellants. 
M. Gauri Shankar Murthy, Y.P. Mahajan and V.K. Verma for the 
Respondent. 
Th~ following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have heard the counsel for both the parties at some length. We 
have been taken through the three agreements concern herein, the orders 
F 
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 ยท 
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 
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
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 . 
-
...