CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The Tribunal held that the license payments made to the software supplier were not includible in the transaction value of the imported CDs under rule 9(1)(c) read with the 1988 Valuation Rules because the four statutory conditions were not satisfied: the fees were not related to the physical import, were not payable as a condition of import, were post-importation/licence conversion payments, and were not excluded from the price paid for the goods. Consequently, rejection of the declared value under rule 10A, imposition of differential duty with interest, and penalties under section 112(a) were unwarranted and quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The Tribunal held that the license payments made to the software supplier were not includible in the transaction value of the imported CDs under rule 9(1)(c) read with the 1988 Valuation Rules because the four statutory conditions were not satisfied: the fees were not related to the physical import, were not payable as a condition of import, were post-importation/licence conversion payments, and were not excluded from the price paid for the goods. Consequently, rejection of the declared value under rule 10A, imposition of differential duty with interest, and penalties under section 112(a) were unwarranted and quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
