<?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>1985 (3) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74830</link>
    <description>A concessional customs duty claim failed because the imported machine was shown to be a general-purpose tool grinding machine and not one that strictly answered the notification description; the DGTD certificate was not conclusive where the notification did not make it a condition, so customs could independently assess eligibility. On licensing, the DGTD certificate expressly covered the machine under the relevant Import Policy entry, so the objection that it could not be imported under Open General Licence was unsustainable. As the import was treated as permissible under the policy, confiscation and redemption fine lacked foundation and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:54:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74830</link>
      <description>A concessional customs duty claim failed because the imported machine was shown to be a general-purpose tool grinding machine and not one that strictly answered the notification description; the DGTD certificate was not conclusive where the notification did not make it a condition, so customs could independently assess eligibility. On licensing, the DGTD certificate expressly covered the machine under the relevant Import Policy entry, so the objection that it could not be imported under Open General Licence was unsustainable. As the import was treated as permissible under the policy, confiscation and redemption fine lacked foundation and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>