<?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>2009 (8) TMI 436 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76099</link>
    <description>Royalty and technical know-how/option fee are not included in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 where the agreement shows those payments relate to the final products to be manufactured in India, not to the imported goods themselves. The Tribunal examined the option/licence terms, including the licensed product, licensed technology, licence fee and royalty clauses, and found no contractual basis linking the payments specifically to the imports. On that footing, the declared price of the imported goods could not be enhanced by those amounts, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 436 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76099</link>
      <description>Royalty and technical know-how/option fee are not included in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 where the agreement shows those payments relate to the final products to be manufactured in India, not to the imported goods themselves. The Tribunal examined the option/licence terms, including the licensed product, licensed technology, licence fee and royalty clauses, and found no contractual basis linking the payments specifically to the imports. On that footing, the declared price of the imported goods could not be enhanced by those amounts, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>