<?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>2014 (5) TMI 203 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247276</link>
    <description>Royalty and consultancy fees paid under collaboration and consultancy agreements were held not to form part of the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The agreements contained no clause requiring procurement of raw materials from the foreign licensor or its group entities, so the payments were not a condition of sale of the imports. The royalty was linked to indigenous value addition rather than the imported materials, and the consultancy fee had no demonstrated nexus with the imports. The explanation to Rule 10(1)(e) was treated as applying to processing of imported goods before use, not post-import manufacturing and domestic sale. The addition to value was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 11:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 203 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247276</link>
      <description>Royalty and consultancy fees paid under collaboration and consultancy agreements were held not to form part of the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The agreements contained no clause requiring procurement of raw materials from the foreign licensor or its group entities, so the payments were not a condition of sale of the imports. The royalty was linked to indigenous value addition rather than the imported materials, and the consultancy fee had no demonstrated nexus with the imports. The explanation to Rule 10(1)(e) was treated as applying to processing of imported goods before use, not post-import manufacturing and domestic sale. The addition to value was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>