<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (12) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72687</link>
    <description>Import valuation under the Customs Act must be based on the commercial invoice price where the buyer and foreign supplier deal at arm&#039;s length and there is no evidence of extra-commercial influence or depressed pricing. A foreign supplier&#039;s shareholding in the Indian buyer and board representation did not by itself establish mutuality of interest, because the interest was not reciprocal. Royalty and trade-mark payments linked only to indigenous manufacture and local marketing, and not to the imported SKD/CKD packs or complete vehicles, could not justify a 1% loading on import value. The assessable value therefore remained the invoice price under Section 14(1)(a), and resort to Section 14(1)(b) and Rule 8 was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 13:11:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (12) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72687</link>
      <description>Import valuation under the Customs Act must be based on the commercial invoice price where the buyer and foreign supplier deal at arm&#039;s length and there is no evidence of extra-commercial influence or depressed pricing. A foreign supplier&#039;s shareholding in the Indian buyer and board representation did not by itself establish mutuality of interest, because the interest was not reciprocal. Royalty and trade-mark payments linked only to indigenous manufacture and local marketing, and not to the imported SKD/CKD packs or complete vehicles, could not justify a 1% loading on import value. The assessable value therefore remained the invoice price under Section 14(1)(a), and resort to Section 14(1)(b) and Rule 8 was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>