<?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>1995 (10) TMI 83 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84468</link>
    <description>Imported second-hand diesel engines were found to be misdescribed as spare parts for trawlers, and the misdeclaration rendered them liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The import also required a valid licence or public notice under the Import and Export Policy, 1992-97; in the absence of such authority, confiscation under Section 111(d) was attracted. The declared invoice value was rejected because it was inconsistent with contemporaneous import data and reliable commercial evidence was lacking, so customs valuation had to proceed on a comparable basis. The goods were also found to have been imported in the name of a fictitious firm, and the contemporaneous market-based assessable value adopted by the adjudicating authority was treated as reasonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:25:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 83 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84468</link>
      <description>Imported second-hand diesel engines were found to be misdescribed as spare parts for trawlers, and the misdeclaration rendered them liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The import also required a valid licence or public notice under the Import and Export Policy, 1992-97; in the absence of such authority, confiscation under Section 111(d) was attracted. The declared invoice value was rejected because it was inconsistent with contemporaneous import data and reliable commercial evidence was lacking, so customs valuation had to proceed on a comparable basis. The goods were also found to have been imported in the name of a fictitious firm, and the contemporaneous market-based assessable value adopted by the adjudicating authority was treated as reasonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>