The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, has held that the company’s proposed customs valuation methodology for imports from related overseas entities is consistent with the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. A residual royalty paid in relation to domestic procurement and third-party imports would not form part of the assessable value for customs purposes. 

The applicant, Adama India, part of the global ADAMA Group, imports active ingredients and finished agrochemical products from its related overseas group companies as well as from independent third-party suppliers. The company also undertakes formulation, packaging, marketing and distribution of crop protection products in India. 

The company sought an advance ruling after introducing a revised inter-company distribution agreement effective from 1 April 2025. Under the new arrangement, Adama India proposed to adopt an arm’s length operating margin model consistent with its transfer pricing policy, under which periodic upward or downward adjustments would be made through debit or credit notes to ensure that its profitability remained within the prescribed benchmark. 

Buy Now: Customs Duty Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

The applicant sought clarity on three important issues:

• Whether the proposed valuation methodology incorporating periodic price adjustments is acceptable as the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules.
• Whether the same methodology is also sustainable under Rule 7 (Deductive Value Method), either independently or read together with Rule 3(3)(a).
• Whether the residual royalty paid only in relation to domestic procurement and third-party imports should be excluded from the assessable value under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules. 

Adama India submitted that the revised transfer pricing model ensures that the company earns only an arm’s length operating margin appropriate for a limited-risk distributor.

The company explained that imports from related ADAMA entities would be periodically adjusted through debit or credit notes depending on actual financial performance. These adjustments would ensure that customs values ultimately reflect arm’s length pricing, while any increase in import value would be appropriately declared to Customs along with payment of differential duty. Similarly, any excess duty resulting from downward adjustments would be claimed in accordance with the Customs Act. 

The applicant further argued that the proposed residual royalty mechanism applies only to products procured domestically or imported from unrelated third parties. The royalty compensates certain ADAMA group entities for intellectual property, know-how and strategic support, but is neither linked to imported goods nor payable as a condition of their sale. Consequently, it does not satisfy the conditions for addition under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules. 

The Authority noted that the revised 2025 distribution agreement substantially expands Adama India’s sourcing model. Unlike the earlier arrangement, which was confined largely to purchases from group companies, the new framework also permits procurement from independent third-party suppliers and local manufacturing through toll formulators.

The revised agreement introduces continuous monitoring of operating margins throughout the financial year, periodic transfer pricing adjustments and, where applicable, a variable residual royalty mechanism designed solely to maintain the agreed arm’s length operating margin. 

The Authority also recorded that Adama India’s import valuation had previously been examined by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) on multiple occasions.

SVB orders issued in 2016 and 2022 had accepted the transaction values of imports from related parties after examining the pricing methodology, inter-company agreements, transfer pricing documentation and comparable import data. The earlier investigations had also concluded that royalty payments made for brand usage were not includible in assessable value because they were not linked to imported goods nor constituted a condition of sale. 

After examining the proposed arrangement, the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings accepted the applicant’s valuation methodology.

The Authority held that periodic transfer pricing adjustments intended to maintain an arm’s length operating margin do not by themselves render the transaction value unacceptable, provided the importer complies with customs valuation requirements and appropriately declares any upward adjustments resulting in additional customs duty.

The Authority further recognised that the methodology remains consistent with Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rule 3(3)(a) governing related-party transactions.

On the second issue, CAAR observed that even if the valuation were examined through the deductive value method under Rule 7, the outcome would substantially align with the proposed arm’s length pricing mechanism because both approaches ultimately derive value by ensuring an appropriate operating margin. 

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling concerns the treatment of the residual royalty.

CAAR accepted the applicant’s contention that the royalty is calculated only after evaluating the company’s overall profitability and applies exclusively to domestic procurement and third-party sourced products.

Since the royalty is not payable in respect of imported goods from related suppliers, is not linked to any specific import transaction and is not a condition for sale of imported goods, the Authority concluded that it does not attract addition under Rule 10 relating to royalties, licence fees or other payments connected with imported goods. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Technical Know-How Royalty Not Addable to Customs Value of Imported Goods: CAAR