https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94808 The invoice price of imported goods sold by a foreign holding company to its Indian subsidiary was accepted as the transaction value because related-party status alone did not justify rejection of the declared price. Applying Rule 4(3)(a) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988, the analysis found that the sale circumstances showed no influence on price, as the principal item was uniformly negotiated at the same level in sales to other Indian buyers and differences in invoice totals arose from additional items and incidental charges. With comparable sales available and no evidence of price manipulation, adoption of the foreign list price and resort to the residual valuation method under Rule 8 were unwarranted. en-us Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:09:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94808 The invoice price of imported goods sold by a foreign holding company to its Indian subsidiary was accepted as the transaction value because related-party status alone did not justify rejection of the declared price. Applying Rule 4(3)(a) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988, the analysis found that the sale circumstances showed no influence on price, as the principal item was uniformly negotiated at the same level in sales to other Indian buyers and differences in invoice totals arose from additional items and incidental charges. With comparable sales available and no evidence of price manipulation, adoption of the foreign list price and resort to the residual valuation method under Rule 8 were unwarranted. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94808