Minutes of the meeting held on 15.1.2010

F

 

F.No.Val/Policy/21/2009                                          Mumbai, the 03rd February 2009

 

Minutes of the meeting with SVB officers held on 15.01.10

 

          A meeting – cum – workshop on the issues pertaining to Transfer Pricing (related party transactions) and functioning of SVBs was held on 15.01.2010. The workshop was inaugurated by Shri Prabhakar Nigam, Director General of Valuation. Apart from the officers from DGOV, Mumbai, the following officers attended the meeting.

 

          Stations                            Dy./Asstt. Commr.              Addl. / Jt. Commr.

1.       Mumbai (SVB) -        Shri Rajeev Garg       -        Shri S.P. Rao

2.       Delhi (SVB)              -        Not attended           -        Not attended

3.       Chennai (SVB)          -        Not attended           -        Shri Peri Umashankar

4.       Kolkotta (SVB)         -        Shri A. Kumar           -        Not attended

5.       Delhi Zonal Unit        -                  ---               -        Shri J.P. Singh

(DGOV)

6.       Chennai Zonal Unit    -                  ---               -        Not attended

(DGOV)

 

          Shri Prabhakar Nigam, Director General of Valuation welcomed the delegates attending the workshop and gave the broad outline and intent of the workshop.

 

2.       Shri Deepak Kumar, Commissioner Valuation and Dr. Satish Dhavale,Joint Commissioner presented the statutory provisions, issues relating to determination of  method of valuation in related party transactions ,additions of payments  relating to royalty/technical know-how/licence fee and working of SVBs.

  

          The following points were discussed during the workshop.

 

A.       Concept of ‘transfer price’ – The concept of ‘transfer price’ as per the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and Income Tax Act was discussed. It was informed that the provisions of Income Tax relating to transfer pricing are based on the guidelines of OECD and relating to the Customs Act are as per the Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (WTO) entered at Marakash Conference.

          The dichotomy prevalent in the approach of both the tax administrations towards the transfer pricing was discussed.

 

B.       Harmonisation of the provisions relating to transfer pricing with the provisions of WCO Agreement on Customs Valuation.    

          The provisions of the Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 alongwith the relevant Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 were discussed vis-à-vis the Article I of WCO Valuation Guidelines and it was informed to the delegates that the provisions relating to Customs Valuations are harmonised with the WCO Customs Valuation Guidelines.

 

C.       Concept of ‘Related Person’ as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Valuation Rules, 2007. 

          The definition of ‘related person’ as per Rule 2(2) of the CVR, 2007 was discussed alongwith its Explanation II. It was stressed upon that the sole agent, sole distributor or sole concessionaire can be treated as related person only when they fall within the criteria i.e. (i) to (viii) of Rule 2(2).

 

D.       Provisions of Rule 3(3) of CVR, 2007.

           The provisions of Rule 3(3) of CVR, 2007 applicable for determination of the value of the imported goods where buyer and seller are related were discussed in detail. The different situations of the related party transactions were discussed alongwith the methods to be adopted for determination of the value of the imported goods in such situations.

 

E.       Additions on account of payments towards Royalties / License fees / Technical Know-how / use of Copy Rights and or Trade Mark under Rule 10 (1)(c) and (e) of CVR, 2007.

          The Rule 10(1)(C) of CVR, 2007 and explanation to it was discussed in great details. The essential ingredients for the additions of above payments as per the Rule, namely, the payments being ‘related to goods’ and ‘condition of the sale’ were discussed. Further WCO advisory opinions on these issues were highlighted. It was emphasized that normally additions under Rule 10(1) are required to be made in transaction between unrelated buyers where transaction value is accepted.  Also in case of related party transaction, additions under Rule 10(1) are made whenever transaction value is found to be acceptable.

          It was explained to the delegates that at the time of taking decisions regarding includiblity or otherwise of these payments, the basic thrust should be to know whether the imported goods contain IPR or goods are manufactured by using the IPR (technical know-how). In these circumstances royalty etc. is related to imported goods. For holding license fees/ Royalty payments as condition of sale, the buyer should not be able to import the goods and use it for intended purpose without payment of License/ Royalty fees.

          The Supreme Court Judgments on this issue were discussed and it was stressed upon the delegates that after insertion of the explanation to rule 10 (1), the legal position has completely changed and the officers have to take this in to consideration at the time of adjudication. Further it was emphasized that the terms and conditions of each Technology Transfer Agreements need to be examined and discussed to ascertain whether the payments are related to imported goods and are condition of the sale of the imported goods so as to include it in the declared transaction value.

  

F.       SVB Functioning – The intent behind the creations of SVBs was discussed alongwith the Circular No 11/2001 – Cus dtd. 23.02.2001.  It was informed to the delegates that as per the above mentioned Circular in addition to the related party transactions, SVBs are required to investigate the following types of cases where  there is no relation between buyer and seller -

  1. Additions required to be made on account of ‘Royalty or Licence fees’
  2. Additions on account of value of any part of the proceeds of the subsequent resale or disposal or use of goods accruing to the seller 
  3. Addition on account of any other payment actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of imported goods.

Further it was emphasized that the cases should not routinely be referred to SVB for further investigation whenever the relationship as per Valuation Rules is declared by the importer without doing preliminary scrutiny regarding the value having been influenced by relationship.

          The details available on the Central Registry Data base (CRD) of DGOV website were made available station wise and it was directed by Commissioner Valuation to reconcile the figures and enter the complete and up-to-date data.

 

G.       General Observations on the SVB Orders

          As this Directorate is critically examining the quality of the SVB orders, the general observation of the Directorate on the SVB orders were made known to participants. Commissioner (Valuation) requested the delegates to take the note of these observations so as to improve the quality of future orders passed by SVB.

 

          The workshop ended with vote of thanks.