https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751062 CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant regarding valuation of imported goods and differential customs duty demand. The tribunal held that advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure incurred by the appellant under agreements with foreign suppliers cannot be added to transaction value of imported goods. The court found that rule 10(1)(e) requirements were not satisfied as the appellant undertook marketing activities on its own account, not to satisfy seller's obligations. Following precedent in Adidas India case, CESTAT set aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2020 and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Apr 2025 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751062 CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant regarding valuation of imported goods and differential customs duty demand. The tribunal held that advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure incurred by the appellant under agreements with foreign suppliers cannot be added to transaction value of imported goods. The court found that rule 10(1)(e) requirements were not satisfied as the appellant undertook marketing activities on its own account, not to satisfy seller's obligations. Following precedent in Adidas India case, CESTAT set aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2020 and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751062