<?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>2013 (9) TMI 504 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237072</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower adjudicating authority&#039;s order. The department failed to establish that the Process Design &amp;amp; Basic Engineering fee (PDBE fee), royalty payments, and design fees were conditions prerequisite for the sale of the imported goods, as required under Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a direct nexus between these payments and the imported goods, which the department could not demonstrate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 504 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237072</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower adjudicating authority&#039;s order. The department failed to establish that the Process Design &amp;amp; Basic Engineering fee (PDBE fee), royalty payments, and design fees were conditions prerequisite for the sale of the imported goods, as required under Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a direct nexus between these payments and the imported goods, which the department could not demonstrate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>