<?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 (3) TMI 251 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83710</link>
    <description>High-sea sales to a trading concern do not qualify for the actual-user relaxation under clause 5(3) of the Import Trade (Control) Order, 1955, where title passes before clearance and the buyer is not an actual user; such non-compliance supports confiscation and redemption fine. Under Import Policy AM 1984, sodium vapour lamps imported as assemblies were not policy &quot;spares&quot; merely because they contained component parts. A spare must replace a part of a specified manufactured product, whereas consumer replacement items fall outside that treatment. Confiscation and penalty were maintained in principle, with redemption fine reduced on quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:48:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 251 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83710</link>
      <description>High-sea sales to a trading concern do not qualify for the actual-user relaxation under clause 5(3) of the Import Trade (Control) Order, 1955, where title passes before clearance and the buyer is not an actual user; such non-compliance supports confiscation and redemption fine. Under Import Policy AM 1984, sodium vapour lamps imported as assemblies were not policy &quot;spares&quot; merely because they contained component parts. A spare must replace a part of a specified manufactured product, whereas consumer replacement items fall outside that treatment. Confiscation and penalty were maintained in principle, with redemption fine reduced on quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>