<?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 (11) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84064</link>
    <description>Imported second-hand diesel engines without the required licence and with undisclosed fittings were treated as misdeclared goods, supporting confiscation under the Customs Act. Because the invoice covered only the engines and did not reflect the additional equipment actually imported, the declared invoice value was rejected and the assessable value was upheld on reasonable alternative material. Penalty on the importing firm was sustained, together with the redemption fine, as the offence was established. The individual director&#039;s personal penalty was set aside because the record did not sufficiently show her specific role or a proper evidentiary basis for individual culpability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:49:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84064</link>
      <description>Imported second-hand diesel engines without the required licence and with undisclosed fittings were treated as misdeclared goods, supporting confiscation under the Customs Act. Because the invoice covered only the engines and did not reflect the additional equipment actually imported, the declared invoice value was rejected and the assessable value was upheld on reasonable alternative material. Penalty on the importing firm was sustained, together with the redemption fine, as the offence was established. The individual director&#039;s personal penalty was set aside because the record did not sufficiently show her specific role or a proper evidentiary basis for individual culpability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>