<?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>1999 (9) TMI 190 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92250</link>
    <description>Related person status under the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 was not established where the foreign supplier&#039;s 40% shareholding did not satisfy the statutory control test and no factual control was shown under the notice or findings below. The value of drawings used for manufacture of imported machinery components was also not includible because Rule 9(1)(b) applies only where the buyer supplies goods or services free of charge for use in producing the imported goods, and no such nexus was proved. Rule 9(1)(c) could not be relied on when it was not invoked in the notice and did not fit the facts. The valuation adopted below was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:56:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 190 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92250</link>
      <description>Related person status under the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 was not established where the foreign supplier&#039;s 40% shareholding did not satisfy the statutory control test and no factual control was shown under the notice or findings below. The value of drawings used for manufacture of imported machinery components was also not includible because Rule 9(1)(b) applies only where the buyer supplies goods or services free of charge for use in producing the imported goods, and no such nexus was proved. Rule 9(1)(c) could not be relied on when it was not invoked in the notice and did not fit the facts. The valuation adopted below was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>