<?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 205 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80583</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed on imported synthetic rags for non-compliance with Open General License (OGL) conditions. The appellants&#039; argument that the goods qualified as rags was dismissed as the imported pants did not meet specified mutilation requirements. Despite acknowledging the goods were pre-mutilated by suppliers, the Tribunal held the appellants accountable for providing detailed specifications. Penalties were reduced to Rs. 20,000 per consignment, totaling Rs. 1,20,000, considering the appellants&#039; status as actual users and subsequent mutilation. Appeals against penalties were mostly rejected, except for the reduced penalty amount granted to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:28:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 205 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80583</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed on imported synthetic rags for non-compliance with Open General License (OGL) conditions. The appellants&#039; argument that the goods qualified as rags was dismissed as the imported pants did not meet specified mutilation requirements. Despite acknowledging the goods were pre-mutilated by suppliers, the Tribunal held the appellants accountable for providing detailed specifications. Penalties were reduced to Rs. 20,000 per consignment, totaling Rs. 1,20,000, considering the appellants&#039; status as actual users and subsequent mutilation. Appeals against penalties were mostly rejected, except for the reduced penalty amount granted to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>