<?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>1994 (1) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83045</link>
    <description>Basic engineering fees paid to a foreign collaborator were examined for inclusion in the customs value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules. The agreement indicated that the collaborator supplied basic design information, while detailed engineering data and drawings were to be prepared by the Indian party. The record did not clearly show how far the fee related to imported machinery as distinct from machinery fabricated in India, and the basis for loading the entire fee to the imported equipment was not adequately explained. The valuation findings were therefore treated as insufficient for a final determination and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:45:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83045</link>
      <description>Basic engineering fees paid to a foreign collaborator were examined for inclusion in the customs value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules. The agreement indicated that the collaborator supplied basic design information, while detailed engineering data and drawings were to be prepared by the Indian party. The record did not clearly show how far the fee related to imported machinery as distinct from machinery fabricated in India, and the basis for loading the entire fee to the imported equipment was not adequately explained. The valuation findings were therefore treated as insufficient for a final determination and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>