<?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>1989 (4) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74916</link>
    <description>An import licence was treated as valid where it had been issued, transferred and supported by a letter of authority before import, and it remained effective until cancelled or otherwise made ineffective in law. The declared weight was upheld because the importer had accepted the clearance and duty basis and did not produce reliable material to displace the Customs method. The goods were found to be prime quality, as the supplier&#039;s certificate was not satisfactorily linked to the consignment and the departmental metallurgical test was not convincingly rebutted. The assessable value, however, was set aside because the basis of valuation was not disclosed, denying a fair opportunity to contest it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:50:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74916</link>
      <description>An import licence was treated as valid where it had been issued, transferred and supported by a letter of authority before import, and it remained effective until cancelled or otherwise made ineffective in law. The declared weight was upheld because the importer had accepted the clearance and duty basis and did not produce reliable material to displace the Customs method. The goods were found to be prime quality, as the supplier&#039;s certificate was not satisfactorily linked to the consignment and the departmental metallurgical test was not convincingly rebutted. The assessable value, however, was set aside because the basis of valuation was not disclosed, denying a fair opportunity to contest it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>