<?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>1994 (6) TMI 92 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83352</link>
    <description>Goods imported without a valid import licence were treated as liable to confiscation because the importer could not substantiate a bona fide mistake in dispatch or produce the underlying order, indent, or acceptance to support that defence. As no licence issued by the licensing authority was available at adjudication, the import was contrary to the licensing requirement. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were upheld against the importer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:16:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (6) TMI 92 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83352</link>
      <description>Goods imported without a valid import licence were treated as liable to confiscation because the importer could not substantiate a bona fide mistake in dispatch or produce the underlying order, indent, or acceptance to support that defence. As no licence issued by the licensing authority was available at adjudication, the import was contrary to the licensing requirement. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were upheld against the importer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>