<?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>2025 (4) TMI 656 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768742</link>
    <description>Royalty and lump-sum payments under a licence and technical assistance agreement were examined for inclusion in the assessable value of imported components under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The controlling test was whether the payment was related to the imported goods and made as a condition of sale. On the stated facts, the royalty was linked to net sales of finished products manufactured in India, the agreement allowed sourcing components from non-licensor suppliers, and there was no contractual requirement to import only from the licensors or evidence of price adjustment for imports. The royalty was therefore held not includible, and the assessee&#039;s appeal succeeded. A dissenting member considered the royalty sufficiently connected to the imported inputs and would have dismissed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:39:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 656 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768742</link>
      <description>Royalty and lump-sum payments under a licence and technical assistance agreement were examined for inclusion in the assessable value of imported components under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The controlling test was whether the payment was related to the imported goods and made as a condition of sale. On the stated facts, the royalty was linked to net sales of finished products manufactured in India, the agreement allowed sourcing components from non-licensor suppliers, and there was no contractual requirement to import only from the licensors or evidence of price adjustment for imports. The royalty was therefore held not includible, and the assessee&#039;s appeal succeeded. A dissenting member considered the royalty sufficiently connected to the imported inputs and would have dismissed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>