<?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>1989 (1) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74158</link>
    <description>A sole selling agency arrangement, where the importer promoted the supplier&#039;s products in India and received commission covering promotional expenses, meant the invoice price was not the sole consideration for sale and valuation could not be made under section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; the valuation had to proceed under section 14(1)(b). For the same reason, Rule 5 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1963 applied to sole agents and distributors, and the established 28% trade discount shown on the price list could not be denied merely because no actual orders had yet been placed. The matter was to be re-determined by allowing the commercial discount, subject to ordinary expenses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:14:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74158</link>
      <description>A sole selling agency arrangement, where the importer promoted the supplier&#039;s products in India and received commission covering promotional expenses, meant the invoice price was not the sole consideration for sale and valuation could not be made under section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; the valuation had to proceed under section 14(1)(b). For the same reason, Rule 5 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1963 applied to sole agents and distributors, and the established 28% trade discount shown on the price list could not be denied merely because no actual orders had yet been placed. The matter was to be re-determined by allowing the commercial discount, subject to ordinary expenses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>