<?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>1993 (3) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83162</link>
    <description>For OGL imports subject to actual-user conditions, possession of a valid registration certificate at the time of clearance is essential; shipment-stage compliance is insufficient, so absence of a valid certificate renders the import unauthorised. The record also showed that the importing firm&#039;s existence was not established, as the stated address was residential and no firm was found there. On natural justice, a personal hearing had been granted and an adjournment request was declined only after adequate opportunity, so the confiscation and penalty were not vitiated. Omission to specify the precise sub-section of Section 112 was not fatal where the penalty basis was otherwise clear.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:35:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83162</link>
      <description>For OGL imports subject to actual-user conditions, possession of a valid registration certificate at the time of clearance is essential; shipment-stage compliance is insufficient, so absence of a valid certificate renders the import unauthorised. The record also showed that the importing firm&#039;s existence was not established, as the stated address was residential and no firm was found there. On natural justice, a personal hearing had been granted and an adjournment request was declined only after adequate opportunity, so the confiscation and penalty were not vitiated. Omission to specify the precise sub-section of Section 112 was not fatal where the penalty basis was otherwise clear.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>