Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.
Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.