Transfer pricing comparability: one support-services company accepted, government-owned and facility-management comparables excluded, forex loss claim...
The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT order dated 29-07-2024. The dispute involved classification of imported spare parts for injection moulding machines under Customs Tariff Heading 84779000 versus 84771000, with allegations of applicability of anti-dumping duty under Notification 09/2016-(ADD). The CESTAT found that the Chartered Engineer's report did not establish that the imported goods were partly assembled or possessed essential features of finished machines, thus Note (IV) of Section XVI of the HSN was inapplicable. Consequently, the classification and duty imposition challenged were affirmed, and the appellate tribunal's decision was maintained without interference.
The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT order dated 29-07-2024. The dispute involved classification of imported spare parts for injection moulding machines under Customs Tariff Heading 84779000 versus 84771000, with allegations of applicability of anti-dumping duty under Notification 09/2016-(ADD). The CESTAT found that the Chartered Engineer's report did not establish that the imported goods were partly assembled or possessed essential features of finished machines, thus Note (IV) of Section XVI of the HSN was inapplicable. Consequently, the classification and duty imposition challenged were affirmed, and the appellate tribunal's decision was maintained without interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
