{"issue_text":"Did the applicant err in declaring royalty on the face value of the invoice based on ex-works price 10 cents less than Fastmarkets benchmark?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant used US$0.60/lb ex-works price vs US$0.70/lb benchmark"}
{"issue_text":"Was the exclusion of freight cost from invoice value a deduction from gross fair market value prohibited by s 37(9)?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"10 cent difference attributed to freight costs"}
{"issue_text":"Does \"double the amount of royalties payable\" mean 200% penalty over and above royalty due?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent calculated penalty at 200% of principal"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a ferrochrome producer, challenged the respondent's tax assessment claiming royalties should be calculated on ex-works invoice value rather than gross fair market value, and disputed the 200% penalty calculation.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases