<?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>2005 (12) TMI 200 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54948</link>
    <description>Running royalty paid to a foreign collaborator was examined for inclusion in the assessable value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The text states that royalty linked to manufacture in India, rather than to the imported synthetic flavouring essence and printer dye inks, was not sufficiently connected with the imports. It further notes that the relationship-based exclusion was not established on the facts and that transaction value could not be displaced absent payment over and above invoice price. On this analysis, the statutory conditions for inclusion under Rule 9(1) were not cumulatively satisfied, so the royalty was not includible in customs value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:34:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 200 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54948</link>
      <description>Running royalty paid to a foreign collaborator was examined for inclusion in the assessable value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The text states that royalty linked to manufacture in India, rather than to the imported synthetic flavouring essence and printer dye inks, was not sufficiently connected with the imports. It further notes that the relationship-based exclusion was not established on the facts and that transaction value could not be displaced absent payment over and above invoice price. On this analysis, the statutory conditions for inclusion under Rule 9(1) were not cumulatively satisfied, so the royalty was not includible in customs value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>