<?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>2003 (12) TMI 430 - CESTAT, new delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110605</link>
    <description>Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 permits addition only of payments actually made or payable as a condition of sale of the imported goods. Drawings, designs and documentation imported under a separate contract were meant for post-import activities and were not shown to be a compulsory part of the price of the turbine and generator. As the two contracts, the imported items and the consideration payable under each were separate, the cost of the drawings and designs could not be loaded onto the assessable value of the earlier imported goods. The proposed addition was therefore unjustified, and confiscation and penalty could not be sustained on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:07:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 430 - CESTAT, new delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110605</link>
      <description>Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 permits addition only of payments actually made or payable as a condition of sale of the imported goods. Drawings, designs and documentation imported under a separate contract were meant for post-import activities and were not shown to be a compulsory part of the price of the turbine and generator. As the two contracts, the imported items and the consideration payable under each were separate, the cost of the drawings and designs could not be loaded onto the assessable value of the earlier imported goods. The proposed addition was therefore unjustified, and confiscation and penalty could not be sustained on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>