<?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>2023 (9) TMI 90 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442468</link>
    <description>Royalty and technical know-how charges paid to a foreign collaborator were not includible in the assessable value of imported goods because the royalty was linked to net sales of licensed articles, the know-how payment related to post-import manufacturing activity, and the importer was free to source components from other suppliers. On those facts, the payments were not a condition of sale of the imported goods, so the valuation rules for added consideration did not apply. The Department&#039;s challenge also failed because the earlier valuation order had been accepted and no appeal had been pursued against the prior appellate order, which reinforced the existing valuation position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2023 07:50:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=724874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 90 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442468</link>
      <description>Royalty and technical know-how charges paid to a foreign collaborator were not includible in the assessable value of imported goods because the royalty was linked to net sales of licensed articles, the know-how payment related to post-import manufacturing activity, and the importer was free to source components from other suppliers. On those facts, the payments were not a condition of sale of the imported goods, so the valuation rules for added consideration did not apply. The Department&#039;s challenge also failed because the earlier valuation order had been accepted and no appeal had been pursued against the prior appellate order, which reinforced the existing valuation position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>