<?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 (11) TMI 906 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334888</link>
    <description>Royalty paid under a trademark licence agreement was not required to be added to the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The royalty was linked to domestic net sales of products manufactured in India, not to the import of raw materials, and the agreement did not require the importer to source inputs only from the foreign licensor. In the absence of any contractual nexus between the royalty payment and the imported goods, the royalty could not be treated as a condition of sale for customs valuation purposes. Accordingly, royalty addition to value was held impermissible and the valuation enhancement was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:20:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 906 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334888</link>
      <description>Royalty paid under a trademark licence agreement was not required to be added to the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The royalty was linked to domestic net sales of products manufactured in India, not to the import of raw materials, and the agreement did not require the importer to source inputs only from the foreign licensor. In the absence of any contractual nexus between the royalty payment and the imported goods, the royalty could not be treated as a condition of sale for customs valuation purposes. Accordingly, royalty addition to value was held impermissible and the valuation enhancement was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>