<?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>2001 (4) TMI 239 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95977</link>
    <description>Technology transfer fee was held not to form part of the assessable value of imported spares under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, because the payment related to disclosure of know-how, technical advice, and development assistance for agricultural land development, not to the imported goods themselves. Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) applies only to engineering, development, art work, design work, and plans or sketches undertaken outside India that are necessary for producing the imported goods, and that nexus was absent here. The imported items were spares rather than capital goods, the cited precedents were distinguishable, and the addition to value under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:43:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 239 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95977</link>
      <description>Technology transfer fee was held not to form part of the assessable value of imported spares under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, because the payment related to disclosure of know-how, technical advice, and development assistance for agricultural land development, not to the imported goods themselves. Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) applies only to engineering, development, art work, design work, and plans or sketches undertaken outside India that are necessary for producing the imported goods, and that nexus was absent here. The imported items were spares rather than capital goods, the cited precedents were distinguishable, and the addition to value under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>