Advertising, Marketing and promotion (‘AMP’) expenses incurred by Importer not required to be added in value of imported goods; Appeal dismissed by SC
- News|Blog|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 21 July, 2021
Case details: Commissioner of Customs v. Indo Rubber and Plastic Works - [2021] 128 taxmann.com 276 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- A. M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
- N. Venkataraman, ASG, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Rupesh Kumar, Abhishek Kumar and Adit Khorana, Advs. for the Appellant.
- Nikhil Jain, AOR, Abhishek Rastogi, Pratyush Saha, Vinod Kumar Jain and Satya Prakash, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant was engaged in importing and distribution of ‘Li Ning’ brand of sports goods. There was nothing in agreement as a pre-condition of sale/import that a fixed amount or fixed percentage of invoice value of imported goods was to be spent by appellant on marketing, advertising, sponsorship and promotional expenses/payments. The department contended that Advertising, Marketing and promotion (‘AMP’) expenses incurred by appellant were required to added in value of imported goods.
However, the Tribunal held that mere making of marketing, advertising, sponsorship and promotional expenses/payments by appellant in consultation with Singapore seller did not attract provisions of Rule 10(1)(e). Moreover, the activity of marketing, advertising, sponsorship and sales promotion was a post import activity and expenses/payments were incurred by appellant on its own account and not for discharge of any obligation of seller under terms of sale and the appellant had not paid any amount on behalf of seller. Therefore, it was held that such expenses/payments made by appellant to promote ‘Li Ning’ brand was not a condition of sale and, hence, same were not liable to be included in value of imported goods in terms of Rule 10(1)(e).
Supreme Court Held
The department challenged the order. The honorable Apex Court observed that there was no merit in the appeal and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.
Cases Review
-
- Indo Rubber and Plastic Works v. Commissioner of Customs [2021] 128 taxmann.com 275 (Cestat -New Delhi) (para 1) affirmed.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied