<?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>1992 (10) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82464</link>
    <description>Import licence validity had to be tested against the import policy in force at the time of actual import, not only the policy prevailing when the licence was issued; because the condensers had been placed in a restricted category before import, the licences were held invalid for those goods. On valuation, the declared transaction value could not be accepted on the existing record because misdeclaration and comparable prices cast doubt on the invoice value, but the Department also had to disclose sufficient material and the importer had to be given a fair opportunity to rebut it. The valuation issue, and the consequential fine and penalty, were therefore remanded for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 12:27:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82464</link>
      <description>Import licence validity had to be tested against the import policy in force at the time of actual import, not only the policy prevailing when the licence was issued; because the condensers had been placed in a restricted category before import, the licences were held invalid for those goods. On valuation, the declared transaction value could not be accepted on the existing record because misdeclaration and comparable prices cast doubt on the invoice value, but the Department also had to disclose sufficient material and the importer had to be given a fair opportunity to rebut it. The valuation issue, and the consequential fine and penalty, were therefore remanded for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>