<?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 (9) TMI 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332308</link>
    <description>Royalty paid under a licence agreement was treated as includible in customs assessable value where it was calculated on net sale price that included imported components, making the royalty linked to the imported goods and a condition of sale for valuation purposes. The fact that transaction value had earlier been accepted did not bar fresh examination of the royalty issue. Res judicata was found inapplicable in subsequent customs valuation review proceedings on the same statutory footing, so the prior non-challenge by the importer did not prevent reconsideration. The Revenue&#039;s position was upheld and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332308</link>
      <description>Royalty paid under a licence agreement was treated as includible in customs assessable value where it was calculated on net sale price that included imported components, making the royalty linked to the imported goods and a condition of sale for valuation purposes. The fact that transaction value had earlier been accepted did not bar fresh examination of the royalty issue. Res judicata was found inapplicable in subsequent customs valuation review proceedings on the same statutory footing, so the prior non-challenge by the importer did not prevent reconsideration. The Revenue&#039;s position was upheld and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>