<?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>2004 (2) TMI 612 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MUMBAI-II</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113815</link>
    <description>Technical know-how fees and royalty payable under a collaboration agreement were not includible in the customs assessable value of imported goods because the charges were linked to manufacturing know-how and goods produced in India, not to the imported capital goods or components themselves. Rule 9(1)(b) did not apply because there was no evidence that the importer supplied goods or services, directly or indirectly, to the foreign supplier for use in producing the imported goods. The agreement also showed that purchases were to be made on competitive terms, so the lump-sum fee was not a condition of supply. The declared transaction value was therefore accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 15:35:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 612 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MUMBAI-II</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113815</link>
      <description>Technical know-how fees and royalty payable under a collaboration agreement were not includible in the customs assessable value of imported goods because the charges were linked to manufacturing know-how and goods produced in India, not to the imported capital goods or components themselves. Rule 9(1)(b) did not apply because there was no evidence that the importer supplied goods or services, directly or indirectly, to the foreign supplier for use in producing the imported goods. The agreement also showed that purchases were to be made on competitive terms, so the lump-sum fee was not a condition of supply. The declared transaction value was therefore accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>