Customs Valuation (Determination of value of Imported goods) Rules, 2007 › Customs Valuation (Determination of value of Imported goods) Rules, 2007
Rule 10. Cost and services
Customs Valuation (Determination of value of Imported goods) Rules, 2007
Official text
Rule 10. Cost and services. —
(1) In determining the transaction value, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, -
(a) the following to the extent they are incurred by the buyer but are not included in the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, namely:-
(i) commissions and brokerage, except buying commissions;
(ii) the cost of containers which are treated as being one for customs purposes with the goods in question;
(iii) the cost of packing whether for labour or materials;
(b) The value, apportioned as appropriate, of the following goods and services where supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sale for export of imported goods, to the extent that such value has not been included in the price actually paid or payable, namely: -
(i) materials, components, parts and similar items incorporated in the imported goods;
(ii) tools, dies, molds and similar items used in the production of the Imported goods;
(iii) materials consumed in the production of the imported goods;
(iv) engineering, development, art work, design work, and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in India and necessary for the production of the imported goods;
(c) royalties and license fees related to the imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the goods being valued, to the extent that such royalties and fees are not included in the price actually paid or payable;
(d) The value of any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use of the imported goods that accrues, directly or indirectly, to the seller;
(e) all other payments actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods, by the buyer to the seller, or by the buyer to a third party to satisfy an obligation of the seller to the extent that such payments are not included in the price actually paid or payable.
Explanation. — Where the royalty, license fee or any other payment for a process, whether patented or otherwise, is includible referred to in clauses (c) and (e), such charges shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, notwithstanding the fact that such goods may be subjected to the said process after importation of such goods.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and these rules, the value of the imported goods shall be the value of such goods, and shall include -
(a) the cost of transport, loading, unloading and handling charges associated with the delivery of the imported goods to the place of importation;
(b) the cost of insurance to the place of importation:
Provided that where the cost referred to in clause (a) is not ascertainable, such cost shall be twenty per cent of the free on board value of the goods:
Provided further that where the free on board value of the goods is not ascertainable but the sum of free on board value of the goods and the cost referred to in clause (b) is ascertainable, the cost referred to in clause (a) shall be twenty per cent of such sum:
Provided also that where the cost referred to in clause (b) is not ascertainable, such cost shall be 1.125% of free on board value of the goods:
Provided also that where the free on board value of the goods is not ascertainable but the sum of free on board value of the goods and the cost referred to in clause (a) is ascertainable, the cost referred to in clause (b) shall be 1.125% of such sum:
Provided also that in the case of goods imported by air, where the cost referred to in clause (a) is ascertainable, such cost shall not exceed twenty per cent of free on board value of the goods:
Provided also that in the case of goods imported by sea or air and transshipped to another customs station in India, the cost of insurance, transport, loading, unloading, handling charges associated with such transshipment shall be excluded.
Explanation - The cost of transport of the imported goods referred to in clause (a) includes the ship demurrage charges on charted vessels, lighterage or barge charges.
(3) Additions to the price actually paid or payable shall be made under this rule on the basis of objective and quantifiable data.
(4) No addition shall be made to the price actually paid or payable in determining the value of the imported goods except as provided for in this rule.
Judgments on Rule 10
- Sterling Meta Plast India Pvt Ltd vs -Kolkata(Admn Airport) — CESTAT, 26 May 2026. Franchise fees/royalties paid to a brand licensor for post-importation rights of sale and distribution, and AMP expenses or corporate marketing fees incurred for the importer's own Indian business, are not includible in…
- M/S Xiaomi Technology India Private… vs Commissioner Of Customs Air… — CESTAT, 14 Nov 2025. Royalty and licence fee paid by an importer under agreements with IPR holders, not disclosed to the customs authorities, is includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007,…
- Commissioner Of Customs Import 1 Zone 1 vs M/S Essar Bulk Terminal Salaya Limited — CESTAT, 3 Apr 2025. Alleged overvaluation without duty consequence cannot sustain confiscation under section 111(m) or penalties under sections 112/114AA, and the price of goods for export to a country other than India is expressly barred…
- Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd vs Chennai( Port Import) — CESTAT, 31 May 2024. Royalty or licence fee paid for technical know-how for manufacture of finished products, and not as a condition of sale of the imported goods, is not includible in the transaction value of the imported raw materials,…
- Cisco Commerce India Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 19 Oct 2022. Once the SVB has accepted a related-party transaction value under Rule 3(3)(a), the department cannot load value on the basis of the importer's own earlier higher-priced imports treated as 'contemporaneous', and any…
- Indusind Media And Communications Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi — Supreme Court of India, 27 Sep 2019. Transaction value must be relatable to the import — amounts payable as a condition of import (including the value of software embedded before shipment) are includible in assessable value, whereas charges for…
- Quest Retail Private Limited vs Patparganj — CESTAT, 16 Jul 2019. Royalty and franchise fees paid for post-importation services such as management, consultation and training, measured by domestic sales volumes, are not includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) of the…
- Tecno Doors Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 4 Apr 2018. Under the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the freight cost includible in the assessable value of goods imported by air shall not…
- Sony Pictures Home Entertainment India vs Airport, Mumbai — CESTAT, 23 Feb 2016. A royalty clause in a contract that also covers import of goods does not, ipso facto, permit addition to transaction value under rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (rule 10 of the 2007 Rules); only…
- M/S. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.(Export), New Delhi — CESTAT, 29 Jul 2015. In a bona fide interpretational valuation dispute where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts, there is no wilful misstatement or suppression, so the extended period of limitation, penalty and confiscation…
- M/S. Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 3 Dec 2025. Goods whose value declared in the Bill of Entry does not correspond to the proper assessable value are liable to confiscation under Section 111(m), and where the undervaluation is admitted, penalty under Section 112(a)…
- M/S Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And… — CESTAT, 2 Jun 2025. Classification of goods is a matter relating to chargeability and the burden of proof lies squarely upon the Revenue, which must adduce proper evidence and apply the General Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff before…
- M.K. Agrotech Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) — Karnataka High Court, 28 Apr 2025. Adhoc 1% handling charges are chargeable to customs duty where the actual charges are not ascertainable, and a Section 27 refund claim must be examined against an unchallenged assessment and the Mafatlal/Wipro…
- Nayara Energy Limited vs Jamnagar(Prev) — CESTAT, 8 Apr 2025. Whether floating crane/unloading charges incurred in moving cargo from a vessel to barges are transport costs includible in assessable value under Section 14 or loading-unloading costs covered by the statutory 1% is a…
- Polyglass Acrylic Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd vs The Additional Director General Through The Director Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence — Delhi High Court, 10 Jan 2025. A show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act that is not adjudicated within the prescribed period lapses and cannot be adjudicated, and repeated placement of the matter in the 'call book' is not a valid…
- Ms Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai Adj — CESTAT, 19 Aug 2024. An addition to assessable value under rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 can stand only on a specific finding that the payment was a condition of sale of the imported goods, with the initial onus of…
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs Vadodara-I — CESTAT, 4 Dec 2023. Where an EOU makes full and regular disclosures of its DTA clearances to the authorities, the value must be determined in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (including…
- Victor Reinz India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import)… — Bombay High Court, 8 Aug 2023. Where an appellate order contains a finding on merits against an assessee and the matter is remanded only for a limited purpose such as re-quantification of duty, the Tribunal cannot refuse to decide the appeal on…
- Sachin Kshirsagar vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 9 Jun 2022. A claim to an exemption benefit does not by itself establish intent to evade duty, and penalties on individuals cannot be sustained where the classification issue is contentious and their role in the alleged…
- Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt Ltd vs Cc (Import) Mumbai — CESTAT, 18 Jan 2019. Royalty paid under a technology agreement is includible in the value of imported goods under Rule 9(1)(c)/Rule 10(1)(c) of the Valuation Rules where, on the agreement's terms and the parties' course of dealing, it is a…