<?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>2017 (1) TMI 968 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337888</link>
    <description>Royalty and technical know-how payments in the assessable value of imported goods required fresh examination because the agreement had not been properly analysed for its practical effect and any condition of sale. The Tribunal noted that the arrangement transferred technical know-how, designs, drawings and engineering information, while also imposing confidentiality restrictions on the importer. It held that the question whether the importer could source materials or components from parties other than the foreign collaborator needed deeper scrutiny. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration without being influenced by prior findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 21:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 968 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337888</link>
      <description>Royalty and technical know-how payments in the assessable value of imported goods required fresh examination because the agreement had not been properly analysed for its practical effect and any condition of sale. The Tribunal noted that the arrangement transferred technical know-how, designs, drawings and engineering information, while also imposing confidentiality restrictions on the importer. It held that the question whether the importer could source materials or components from parties other than the foreign collaborator needed deeper scrutiny. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration without being influenced by prior findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>