Supreme Court of India

THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Decided: 6 February 1997
Judges listed: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Dismissed

Citations

Official: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 991 · 1997 INSC 119

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph¶

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 agreements 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 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 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 accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed .

pp. 991–992, margin F