<?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>1990 (2) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80500</link>
    <description>Under the Duty Exemption Scheme, exporters must declare the actual duty-exempt material used in the resultant products; policy norms for advance licence clearance cannot substitute for true consumption figures. A declaration based on estimated or norm-based quantities, where laboratory evidence showed substantially lower actual use, was treated as incorrect and sufficient to sustain confiscation. The same non-disclosure of actual consumption, coupled with an unacceptable explanation for treating different units as equivalent, justified redemption fine and personal penalty. The appellate challenge therefore failed, and the confiscation and monetary consequences remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:55:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80500</link>
      <description>Under the Duty Exemption Scheme, exporters must declare the actual duty-exempt material used in the resultant products; policy norms for advance licence clearance cannot substitute for true consumption figures. A declaration based on estimated or norm-based quantities, where laboratory evidence showed substantially lower actual use, was treated as incorrect and sufficient to sustain confiscation. The same non-disclosure of actual consumption, coupled with an unacceptable explanation for treating different units as equivalent, justified redemption fine and personal penalty. The appellate challenge therefore failed, and the confiscation and monetary consequences remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>