<?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>Royalty Payments Excluded from Imported Goods Valuation; Repackaging Not Manufacturing per CESTAT Decision.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80627</link>
    <description>The case pertains to the valuation of imported goods and the inclusion of royalty payments for determining the transaction value. The key points are: The transaction value declared by the importer was initially accepted u/r 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR 2007). However, the revenue authorities later sought to include royalty payments made to a group company (Ajinomoto Japan) for using their trademark, citing Rules 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(e) of CVR 2007. The appellant contended that the royalty payment was not a condition of sale for the imported goods from Ajinomoto Thailand but was for the license to use the trademark. The CESTAT examined the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in Commissioner of Customs vs M/S Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd., w.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:14:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:14:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Royalty Payments Excluded from Imported Goods Valuation; Repackaging Not Manufacturing per CESTAT Decision.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80627</link>
      <description>The case pertains to the valuation of imported goods and the inclusion of royalty payments for determining the transaction value. The key points are: The transaction value declared by the importer was initially accepted u/r 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR 2007). However, the revenue authorities later sought to include royalty payments made to a group company (Ajinomoto Japan) for using their trademark, citing Rules 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(e) of CVR 2007. The appellant contended that the royalty payment was not a condition of sale for the imported goods from Ajinomoto Thailand but was for the license to use the trademark. The CESTAT examined the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in Commissioner of Customs vs M/S Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd., w.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:14:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>