Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
The CESTAT held that the contract manufacturers (CMs) were not...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112(a), s.114AA
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The CESTAT held that the contract manufacturers (CMs) were not the buyers of the imported parts and components; X Corp was the beneficial owner and therefore chargeable with differential customs duty. Royalties/license fees were held addable to transaction value under Rule 10(1)(c) and demand for duty could be made from the beneficial owner; extended limitation was invoked for willful suppression. Interest on delayed payment was confirmed. The goods were liable to confiscation under s.111(m). Penalty under s.114A was sustained against X Corp (precluding a concurrent s.112 levy); CMs were liable under s.112(a) and s.114AA. No penalties were imposed on the named executive. Differential duty with interest was confirmed and the matter was remanded to the OA to redetermine penalties. Appeal disposed.
The CESTAT held that the contract manufacturers (CMs) were not the buyers of the imported parts and components; X Corp was the beneficial owner and therefore chargeable with differential customs duty. Royalties/license fees were held addable to transaction value under Rule 10(1)(c) and demand for duty could be made from the beneficial owner; extended limitation was invoked for willful suppression. Interest on delayed payment was confirmed. The goods were liable to confiscation under s.111(m). Penalty under s.114A was sustained against X Corp (precluding a concurrent s.112 levy); CMs were liable under s.112(a) and s.114AA. No penalties were imposed on the named executive. Differential duty with interest was confirmed and the matter was remanded to the OA to redetermine penalties. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
