<?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>1991 (3) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42972</link>
    <description>Mutual interest between an importer and foreign collaborator must be mutual and direct, not merely a one-sided commercial or technology-supply relationship, to displace valuation under section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On the stated facts, the collaboration agreement did not show the required mutuality, so that ground for exclusion was not made out. A lump sum technical collaboration fee will not be added to CKD pack prices under section 14(1)(b) read with rule 8 unless there is material showing a real nexus between that payment and the import price; here, the invoice price was separately fixed and accepted, so loading was unjustified and invoice value had to be accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:25:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42972</link>
      <description>Mutual interest between an importer and foreign collaborator must be mutual and direct, not merely a one-sided commercial or technology-supply relationship, to displace valuation under section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On the stated facts, the collaboration agreement did not show the required mutuality, so that ground for exclusion was not made out. A lump sum technical collaboration fee will not be added to CKD pack prices under section 14(1)(b) read with rule 8 unless there is material showing a real nexus between that payment and the import price; here, the invoice price was separately fixed and accepted, so loading was unjustified and invoice value had to be accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>