<?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>1988 (4) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73968</link>
    <description>Where the import policy confers final interpretative authority on the designated import-control authority, its clarification governs the scope of the REP licence and the legality of the import. On that binding interpretation, almonds in shell were treated as consumer goods falling within the restricted category and were not validly importable under the licence; confiscation was therefore sustained. The redemption fine and personal penalty were also upheld because the adjudicating authority had considered the margin of profit, the value of the goods, and the nature of the contravention, and no reason was shown to interfere with the quantified sanctions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73968</link>
      <description>Where the import policy confers final interpretative authority on the designated import-control authority, its clarification governs the scope of the REP licence and the legality of the import. On that binding interpretation, almonds in shell were treated as consumer goods falling within the restricted category and were not validly importable under the licence; confiscation was therefore sustained. The redemption fine and personal penalty were also upheld because the adjudicating authority had considered the margin of profit, the value of the goods, and the nature of the contravention, and no reason was shown to interfere with the quantified sanctions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>