<?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 (10) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80151</link>
    <description>SKD/CKD copier imports were required to be tested against the individual licence and the actual goods imported, rather than treated as complete machines merely because they could be assembled into one. Applying the cited Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal rejected the contrary import-control challenge and held the licence invalid for the items, quantities, descriptions and values imported. It also sustained rejection of the declared invoice value and quotations because the importers had admitted that the prices did not reflect the real value, and the remaining items were assessed under customs valuation rules. Misdeclaration of description and value therefore justified confiscation, redemption fine and penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:07:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80151</link>
      <description>SKD/CKD copier imports were required to be tested against the individual licence and the actual goods imported, rather than treated as complete machines merely because they could be assembled into one. Applying the cited Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal rejected the contrary import-control challenge and held the licence invalid for the items, quantities, descriptions and values imported. It also sustained rejection of the declared invoice value and quotations because the importers had admitted that the prices did not reflect the real value, and the remaining items were assessed under customs valuation rules. Misdeclaration of description and value therefore justified confiscation, redemption fine and penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>