<p>小米印度的特许权使用费税案是其在该国面临的最新难题</p>
<p>印度律师密切关注可能成为先例的案件</p>
<p>小米辩称法庭错误要求其支付特许权使用费税</p>
<p>法庭指控小米 ‘故意隐瞒事实’</p>
<p>作者：阿尔潘·查图尔维迪和阿迪提亚·卡尔拉</p>
<p>新德里，2 月 25 日（路透社）- 根据法律文件，小米（1810.HK）已对印度税务裁决提出挑战，该裁决称该公司逃避了 7200 万美元的特许权使用费关税，这场争议被中国公司和律师视为对该国合同制造法律框架的考验。</p>
<p>小米是印度智能手机市场的重要参与者，多年来其合同制造商在该国从中国进口零部件，支付关税，然后组装设备。</p>
<p>但在 11 月，印度税务法庭裁定这些进口价值在 2020 年前的至少三年内被低估，因为它们未包括小米支付给外国公司（如高通（QCOM.O））的 2% 至 5% 的特许权使用费。</p>
<p>在一起最高法院的挑战中，路透社首次报道，小米辩称税务法庭错误地认为其是这些零部件的 ‘受益所有人’，同时要求其支付特许权使用费税。小米已请求推翻该裁决。</p>
<p>法庭裁决的影响深远，因为它表明 ‘对整个合同制造行业的隐性不信任’，小米在一份日期为 1 月 15 日的文件中表示，该文件尚未公开，但已被路透社审阅。</p>
<p>法庭的决定 ‘严重损害了制造行业的既定实践’。</p>
<p>小米、高通和印度海关部门未对此请求置评。</p>
<h3>具有先例意义的案件</h3>
<p>小米的前合同制造商，Flextronics Technologies India（美国上市的 Flex（FLEX.O）子公司）和 Bharat FIH（台湾富士康（2317.TW）子公司）也在最高法院反对税务法庭的决定，依据两位知情人士和法院的在线列表。</p>
<p>Flex 拒绝置评，富士康未回应置评请求。</p>
<p>税务律师表示，该案件受到全球投资者和在印度大举投资公司的密切关注。</p>
<p>如果支持印度当局的裁决，可能会增加对许多进口公司在制药、汽车和制造等行业的特许权使用协议的审查，律师表示。</p>
<p>‘最高法院的裁决将具有广泛意义，因为它将明确印度海关的权力，’ 新德里税务律师塔伦·贾因表示。</p>
<p>‘如果维持该裁决，可能会赋予当局对其他相关支付征税的权力，这些支付可能是由有效控制其合作伙伴进口商品的公司进行的。’</p>
<p>吸引像苹果（AAPL.O）这样的外国公司在印度制造是印度总理纳伦德拉·莫迪近年来的重点工作。大众汽车（VOWG.DE）和三星（005930.KS）也在法院对印度的巨额进口税要求提出异议，这一问题已影响投资者情绪。</p>
<h3>小米的烦恼</h3>
<p>根据印度法律，如果小米印度在法庭上败诉，7200 万美元的关税要求可能会因利息和罚款而增加到超过 1.5 亿美元。这可能会给公司带来压力，因为其 2023-2024 财年的利润为 3170 万美元。</p>
<p>此外，自 2022 年以来，由于涉嫌非法汇款，印度联邦金融犯罪打击机构执法局已冻结小米印度约 6.1 亿美元的银行资金。该公司否认这些指控。</p>
<p>Counterpoint Research 的数据表明，小米在印度的智能手机市场份额从 2018 年初的 31% 骤降至 12%。</p>
<p>在周一的听证会上，小米的律师告诉最高法院，法庭的决定将 ‘导致混乱’。</p>
<p>其法庭文件显示，小米将辩称进口税应由进口商（在本案中为合同制造商）支付，其特许权使用费与这些进口无关，因此不应征税。</p>
<p>在 11 月，印度税务法庭表示小米 ‘故意隐瞒事实’，并认为特许权使用费需要征税，因为该公司为进口零部件所需的关键技术支付了费用。</p>
<p>在周一的听证会上，法院要求印度政府回应小米的请求，称其特许权使用费不应被征税。</p>

HXXD

小米集团(ADR)

<p>小米对印度税务法庭裁定提出挑战，该裁定对其特许权使用费支付征收 7200 万美元的关税，声称其被错误地认定为进口组件的 “实际拥有者”。此案受到法律专家的密切关注，可能会对印度的合同制造业设立先例。如果裁定得到维持，可能会导致对各个行业特许权使用协议的审查加剧。此外，小米还面临资金被冻结和在印度市场份额下降的财务压力，潜在的罚款将使税务要求超过 1.5 亿美元</p>

<p>Xiaomi India royalty tax case is its latest headache in country</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>小米印度的特许权使用费税案是其在该国面临的最新难题</p>
</div><p>Indian lawyers closely watching case that could set precedent</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>印度律师密切关注可能成为先例的案件</p>
</div><p>Xiaomi argues tribunal wrongly asked it to pay tax on royalty</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>小米辩称法庭错误要求其支付特许权使用费税</p>
</div><p>Tribunal accuses Xiaomi of ‘deliberate suppression of facts’</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法庭指控小米 ‘故意隐瞒事实’</p>
</div><p>By Arpan Chaturvedi and Aditya Kalra</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：阿尔潘·查图尔维迪和阿迪提亚·卡尔拉</p>
</div><p>NEW DELHI, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Xiaomi (1810.HK) has challenged an Indian tax ruling that said the company evaded $72 million in tariffs on royalty payments, according to legal documents, a dispute that the Chinese company and lawyers say is a test of the country’s legal framework for contract manufacturing.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>新德里，2 月 25 日（路透社）- 根据法律文件，小米（1810.HK）已对印度税务裁决提出挑战，该裁决称该公司逃避了 7200 万美元的特许权使用费关税，这场争议被中国公司和律师视为对该国合同制造法律框架的考验。</p>
</div><p>Xiaomi, a major player in the Indian smartphone market, has for years had its contract manufacturers in the country import parts from China, pay customs duties and then assemble the devices.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>小米是印度智能手机市场的重要参与者，多年来其合同制造商在该国从中国进口零部件，支付关税，然后组装设备。</p>
</div><p>But in November, an Indian tax tribunal ruled those import values had been undervalued for at least three years leading up to 2020 as they failed to include the 2% to 5% royalties that Xiaomi paid to foreign firms like Qualcomm (QCOM.O) for using their technologies in components.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但在 11 月，印度税务法庭裁定这些进口价值在 2020 年前的至少三年内被低估，因为它们未包括小米支付给外国公司（如高通（QCOM.O））的 2% 至 5% 的特许权使用费。</p>
</div><p>In a Supreme Court challenge, which Reuters is first to report, Xiaomi argued that the tax tribunal erred by saying it was the “beneficial owner” of the components while requiring it to pay tax on the royalties. Xiaomi has asked that the ruling be overturned.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在一起最高法院的挑战中，路透社首次报道，小米辩称税务法庭错误地认为其是这些零部件的 ‘受益所有人’，同时要求其支付特许权使用费税。小米已请求推翻该裁决。</p>
</div><p>The implications of the tribunal’s ruling are far-reaching as they indicate “an implicit mistrust of the entire contract manufacturing industry,” Xiaomi said in a filing dated January 15, which is not public but was reviewed by Reuters.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法庭裁决的影响深远，因为它表明 ‘对整个合同制造行业的隐性不信任’，小米在一份日期为 1 月 15 日的文件中表示，该文件尚未公开，但已被路透社审阅。</p>
</div><p>The tribunal decision “grievously injures the established practices of (the) manufacturing sector.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法庭的决定 ‘严重损害了制造行业的既定实践’。</p>
</div><p>Xiaomi, Qualcomm and India’s customs department did not respond to requests for comment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>小米、高通和印度海关部门未对此请求置评。</p>
</div><h3>PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE</h3>
<div class="lb-trans"><h3>具有先例意义的案件</h3>
</div><p>Xiaomi’s former contract manufacturers, Flextronics Technologies India, a unit of U.S.-listed Flex (FLEX.O) , and Bharat FIH, a unit of Taiwan’s Foxconn (2317.TW) , are also opposing the tax tribunal’s decision at the top court, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter and the court’s online listings.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>小米的前合同制造商，Flextronics Technologies India（美国上市的 Flex（FLEX.O）子公司）和 Bharat FIH（台湾富士康（2317.TW）子公司）也在最高法院反对税务法庭的决定，依据两位知情人士和法院的在线列表。</p>
</div><p>Flex declined to comment and Foxconn did not respond to a request for comment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Flex 拒绝置评，富士康未回应置评请求。</p>
</div><p>Tax lawyers say the case is being closely watched by global investors and companies who have bet big on India.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>税务律师表示，该案件受到全球投资者和在印度大举投资公司的密切关注。</p>
</div><p>A ruling in favour of Indian authorities could increase scrutiny of the royalty agreements that many importing companies have in sectors including pharmaceuticals, autos and manufacturing, lawyers said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果支持印度当局的裁决，可能会增加对许多进口公司在制药、汽车和制造等行业的特许权使用协议的审查，律师表示。</p>
</div><p>“The Supreme Court ruling will be widely significant as it will specify the powers of Indian customs,” said Tarun Jain, a New Delhi-based tax lawyer.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>‘最高法院的裁决将具有广泛意义，因为它将明确印度海关的权力，’ 新德里税务律师塔伦·贾因表示。</p>
</div><p>“If upheld, it can empower authorities to seek taxes on other related payments made by companies who may be exercising effective control over goods being imported by their partners.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>‘如果维持该裁决，可能会赋予当局对其他相关支付征税的权力，这些支付可能是由有效控制其合作伙伴进口商品的公司进行的。’</p>
</div><p>Luring foreign companies like Apple (AAPL.O) to manufacture in India has been a key priority of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in recent years. Volkswagen (VOWG.DE) and Samsung (005930.KS) are also contesting sizeable Indian import tax demands in court, an issue that has soured investor sentiment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>吸引像苹果（AAPL.O）这样的外国公司在印度制造是印度总理纳伦德拉·莫迪近年来的重点工作。大众汽车（VOWG.DE）和三星（005930.KS）也在法院对印度的巨额进口税要求提出异议，这一问题已影响投资者情绪。</p>
</div><h3>XIAOMI’S HEADACHES</h3>
<div class="lb-trans"><h3>小米的烦恼</h3>
</div><p>According to Indian law, the customs tax demand of $72 million could rise to more than $150 million with interest and penalties if Xiaomi India loses in court. That could put a strain on the company as its profits were $31.7 million in the 2023-2024 financial year.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据印度法律，如果小米印度在法庭上败诉，7200 万美元的关税要求可能会因利息和罚款而增加到超过 1.5 亿美元。这可能会给公司带来压力，因为其 2023-2024 财年的利润为 3170 万美元。</p>
</div><p>On top of that, around $610 million of Xiaomi India bank funds have been frozen by a federal financial crime-fighting agency, the Enforcement Directorate, since 2022 due to allegations of illegal remittances. The company has denied the allegations.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此外，自 2022 年以来，由于涉嫌非法汇款，印度联邦金融犯罪打击机构执法局已冻结小米印度约 6.1 亿美元的银行资金。该公司否认这些指控。</p>
</div><p>Counterpoint Research data showed Xiaomi’s India smartphone market share plunged to 12% in December from a high of 31% in early 2018.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Counterpoint Research 的数据表明，小米在印度的智能手机市场份额从 2018 年初的 31% 骤降至 12%。</p>
</div><p>In a hearing on Monday, Xiaomi’s lawyer told the Supreme Court the tribunal’s decision will “lead to chaos.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在周一的听证会上，小米的律师告诉最高法院，法庭的决定将 ‘导致混乱’。</p>
</div><p>Its court filing showed Xiaomi will argue import taxes are to be paid by importers - in this case contract manufacturers - and its royalties are not linked to those imports and therefore should not be taxable.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>其法庭文件显示，小米将辩称进口税应由进口商（在本案中为合同制造商）支付，其特许权使用费与这些进口无关，因此不应征税。</p>
</div><p>In November, the Indian tax tribunal said Xiaomi “indulged in deliberate suppression of facts” and royalties need to be taxed as the company is paying for technology that is critical to the imported parts.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 11 月，印度税务法庭表示小米 ‘故意隐瞒事实’，并认为特许权使用费需要征税，因为该公司为进口零部件所需的关键技术支付了费用。</p>
</div><p>During Monday’s hearing, the court told the Indian government to respond to Xiaomi’s plea that its royalties should not be taxed.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在周一的听证会上，法院要求印度政府回应小米的请求，称其特许权使用费不应被征税。</p>
</div>

Xiaomi challenges India tax authority over tariffs on royalties in closely watched case

- 小米对印度税务裁决提出挑战，涉及 7200 万美元特许权使用费关税。  
- 法庭指控小米 ‘故意隐瞒事实’，影响合同制造行业信任。  
- 若败诉，关税及罚款或增至超过 1.5 亿美元，进一步影响其利润。

小米在备受关注的案件中对印度税务机关关于特许权使用费征收关税的决定提出质疑