Marketing support and subcontracted client contracts: no agency permanent establishment under Article 5 DTAA; arm's-length pricing bars profit attribu...
Transfer pricing comparables selection and working capital adjustment u/r 10B(1)(e)(iii), remanded for recomputation with rejected comparables include...
Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.