<?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 (12) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80305</link>
    <description>Redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act is payable only where confiscable goods are available for confiscation; if the imported goods are not available, the proper remedy is enforcement of the re-export bond rather than levy of redemption fine. Assessable value for duty was upheld at US $ 26 per bag because the valuation was supported by contemporaneous import documents, including the declaration and supplier telex, and was not displaced by later contrary material. The lower value claimed for other bags was rejected as non-comparable because those goods had been separately examined and assessed on actual condition. The limitation issue was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:56:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80305</link>
      <description>Redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act is payable only where confiscable goods are available for confiscation; if the imported goods are not available, the proper remedy is enforcement of the re-export bond rather than levy of redemption fine. Assessable value for duty was upheld at US $ 26 per bag because the valuation was supported by contemporaneous import documents, including the declaration and supplier telex, and was not displaced by later contrary material. The lower value claimed for other bags was rejected as non-comparable because those goods had been separately examined and assessed on actual condition. The limitation issue was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>