<?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>1995 (10) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84855</link>
    <description>Running royalty paid under a technical assistance agreement was held not to form part of the assessable value of imported components because the royalty was consideration for technical know-how, industrial property rights and trademark use, while the component price was separately fixed under an independent supply arrangement. No material showed that the invoice price was below ordinary international price, that the agreement was incomplete, or that any royalty element was embedded in the import price. The parties&#039; relationship did not establish the controlling interest or nexus needed to reject transaction value, so the invoice price had to be accepted and best judgment valuation was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:39:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84855</link>
      <description>Running royalty paid under a technical assistance agreement was held not to form part of the assessable value of imported components because the royalty was consideration for technical know-how, industrial property rights and trademark use, while the component price was separately fixed under an independent supply arrangement. No material showed that the invoice price was below ordinary international price, that the agreement was incomplete, or that any royalty element was embedded in the import price. The parties&#039; relationship did not establish the controlling interest or nexus needed to reject transaction value, so the invoice price had to be accepted and best judgment valuation was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>