<?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>2009 (3) TMI 756 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126079</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, ruled in favor of the appellant concerning the determination of related party status and the addition of a technical know-how fee to imported goods. The Tribunal found that the appellant and the supplier were not related parties, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision to load the value of imports. Additionally, the inclusion of the technical know-how fee without prior notice or opportunity for the importers to contest was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized procedural fairness and due process in customs duty assessments, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:56:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 756 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126079</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, ruled in favor of the appellant concerning the determination of related party status and the addition of a technical know-how fee to imported goods. The Tribunal found that the appellant and the supplier were not related parties, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision to load the value of imports. Additionally, the inclusion of the technical know-how fee without prior notice or opportunity for the importers to contest was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized procedural fairness and due process in customs duty assessments, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>