https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336785 The Tribunal held that the finding that the importer and foreign collaborator were related, and that the relationship affected valuation, was not open to reopening because neither party had challenged that foundational issue in appeal. It also held that additions to the invoice value for technical know-how and collaboration fee were unsustainable where the appellate authority had only been asked to remand the matter and could not travel beyond the scope of the Revenue's prayer. Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) was found inapplicable because it addresses buyer-supplied engineering and related inputs, not technical know-how supplied by the seller. The appellate order was annulled and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 05 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336785 The Tribunal held that the finding that the importer and foreign collaborator were related, and that the relationship affected valuation, was not open to reopening because neither party had challenged that foundational issue in appeal. It also held that additions to the invoice value for technical know-how and collaboration fee were unsustainable where the appellate authority had only been asked to remand the matter and could not travel beyond the scope of the Revenue's prayer. Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) was found inapplicable because it addresses buyer-supplied engineering and related inputs, not technical know-how supplied by the seller. The appellate order was annulled and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336785