<?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>2016 (3) TMI 255 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325071</link>
    <description>Royalty and lump sum technical know-how fees are includible in the assessable value of imported goods only where they have a sufficient nexus with the imports and are required, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale. The relevant inquiry is whether the import price was adjusted by shifting value into royalty or licence payments, and the technical assistance agreement must be read with the pricing arrangement. Where the payments relate only to manufactured products sold in India, and no price adjustment or other link to the imported components is shown, inclusion under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 is not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 255 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325071</link>
      <description>Royalty and lump sum technical know-how fees are includible in the assessable value of imported goods only where they have a sufficient nexus with the imports and are required, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale. The relevant inquiry is whether the import price was adjusted by shifting value into royalty or licence payments, and the technical assistance agreement must be read with the pricing arrangement. Where the payments relate only to manufactured products sold in India, and no price adjustment or other link to the imported components is shown, inclusion under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 is not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>