<?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 (2) TMI 1027 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339327</link>
    <description>Imported cineprints were valued under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 by treating licence fee and related remittances to the foreign supplier as part of the assessable value. The distribution agreement imposed substantial restrictions on use, disposal, assignment and duration of exploitation, and legal title remained with the foreign entity, so the amounts paid were conditions attached to import and use rather than a true sale price. After withdrawal of the special exemption notification, valuation for the later period had to proceed under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. On these facts, rejection of the declared value was justified and the residuary method under Rule 8 could be applied with guidance from Rules 4 and 9(1)(c).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1027 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339327</link>
      <description>Imported cineprints were valued under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 by treating licence fee and related remittances to the foreign supplier as part of the assessable value. The distribution agreement imposed substantial restrictions on use, disposal, assignment and duration of exploitation, and legal title remained with the foreign entity, so the amounts paid were conditions attached to import and use rather than a true sale price. After withdrawal of the special exemption notification, valuation for the later period had to proceed under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. On these facts, rejection of the declared value was justified and the residuary method under Rule 8 could be applied with guidance from Rules 4 and 9(1)(c).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>