https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51305 The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal that increased the assessable value of refrigeration equipment imported by the appellant by 15%. It ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that they were not a related person under Rule 2(2)(v) and that Rule 9(1)(a) did not apply. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's role as an indenting agent, the lack of mutuality of interest with the foreign company, and the incorrect application of Rule 9(1)(a). Consequently, the loading of 15% on imports was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:13:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51305 The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal that increased the assessable value of refrigeration equipment imported by the appellant by 15%. It ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that they were not a related person under Rule 2(2)(v) and that Rule 9(1)(a) did not apply. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's role as an indenting agent, the lack of mutuality of interest with the foreign company, and the incorrect application of Rule 9(1)(a). Consequently, the loading of 15% on imports was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51305