<?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>1991 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82435</link>
    <description>Import of a ship for breaking using flexibility value under multiple REP and additional licences was assessed under a strict reading of the policy, which specifically provided clubbing for non-OGL capital goods. However, the importer had disclosed the proposed import to the licensing authority, obtained transfer licences without objection, and acted without mala fides. A later amendment and circulars permitted such imports using flexibility under valid REP licences within the same licensing regime. Although the amendment was not retrospective and confiscability was not fully displaced, the later policy position and bona fide conduct meant that heavy redemption fine and personal penalty were not justified; those monetary penalties were remitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:12:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82435</link>
      <description>Import of a ship for breaking using flexibility value under multiple REP and additional licences was assessed under a strict reading of the policy, which specifically provided clubbing for non-OGL capital goods. However, the importer had disclosed the proposed import to the licensing authority, obtained transfer licences without objection, and acted without mala fides. A later amendment and circulars permitted such imports using flexibility under valid REP licences within the same licensing regime. Although the amendment was not retrospective and confiscability was not fully displaced, the later policy position and bona fide conduct meant that heavy redemption fine and personal penalty were not justified; those monetary penalties were remitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>