An Australian subsidiary of Estee Lauder paid a licence fees to licensor on sales of cosmetics in Australia whether imported or made locally. At issue is whether this fees should be taken into account in determining price and thus “transaction value” of goods for purposes of assessing customs duty. Judgement of the Federal Court The Court found that the fee should not be included. “The royalties will also be part of the price of the goods if it were open to a Collector to conclude that the licence agreement was so closely connected with the contracts of sale pursuant to which the goods were imported and to the goods that together they formed a single transaction. I do not think there is any basis for the taking of such a view. The licence agreement was made in 1969 and appointed the applicant exclusive licensee of the relevant trade marks in Australia. The agreement entitled the applicant to use the trade marks on goods manufactured in Australia as well as upon finished goods imported here. The applicant’s manufacturing operations in Australia were and are extensive so that its sales comprise substantial quantities of cosmetics manufactured here in addition to those which are imported. Then there is the fact that the licence fees are calculated on sales. For this purpose locally manufactured cosmetics and imported cosmetics are treated indistinguishably. There is also the circumstance that not all goods imported or manufactured by the applicant are sold. Some are given away either in the course of promotions or for reasons not so directly connected with the applicant’s advertising and marketing activities. All these factors lead, in my opinion, to the conclusion that it could not be correct to say that either of the contracts pursuant to which the goods were imported and the licence agreement together formed a single transaction. The question, in relation to “price related costs”, is, firstly, whether the royalties paid under the agreement are paid directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the purchaser to the vendor or to another person “under the import sales transaction”. If they are, the further question arises whether the only relationship which the royalties have to the imported goods is insubstantial or incidental. In order for the Comptroller to succeed, the royalties must be paid “under” each of the import sales transactions. “Under” in this context is synonymous with “pursuant to”. In my opinion the royalties were not paid pursuant to either of the import sales transactions. The transactions stood separately and apart from the licence agreement which entitled the Canadian company to a royalty in respect of all sales – not imports or purchases – of Estee Lauder products. If I be wrong in this conclusion, then I do not think that the relationship of the royalties to the imported goods is otherwise than insubstantial or incidental. I do not think it possible to take any other view of the matter when one considers what is involved in the licence agreement and considers it in relation to the import transactions and the surrounding facts and circumstances. The explanatory memoranda earlier referred to show that a principal purpose of the amendments which were made to the legislation in 1989 was to overcome what was referred to as “transaction split”. To the extent that the new sections were designed to overcome the mischief of transaction splitting, it has to be said that no such considerations affected the transactions which are in question here. The evidence shows a long standing licence agreement and a continuing business relationship in which goods bearing the Estee Lauder trade marks were imported by the applicant and, independently of those importations, royalties being paid to the Canadian company. I mention this matter only because of the emphasis placed upon it in argument. I do not think it has any ultimate bearing on the outcome of the case because it would not be right to limit the operation of the provisions of the new Division 2 to transactions which, although not properly characterised as transaction splitting, nevertheless fell within the words of the relevant sections. In the result neither the Comptroller nor the Collector was, in my opinion, entitled to take into account the royalties paid by the applicant to the Canadian company when the transaction values of the goods were assessed. The applicant is thus entitled to succeed. In its application it claimed injunctive as well as declaratory relief. I do not think this is a case where it is appropriate to grant injunctive relief. The applicant will be sufficiently protected by the making of appropriate declarations. The respondents are to pay the applicant its costs of the application.” FCA 359″] ...