<?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>1996 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85295</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Collector&#039;s decision that the import was not covered by a valid license due to a delayed shipment. It found insufficient evidence to invalidate the invoice price and clarified the basis for confiscation under the Customs Act, reducing the redemption fine and setting aside the demand for differential duty. The appeal was dismissed based on the Tribunal&#039;s modifications to the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:30:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85295</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Collector&#039;s decision that the import was not covered by a valid license due to a delayed shipment. It found insufficient evidence to invalidate the invoice price and clarified the basis for confiscation under the Customs Act, reducing the redemption fine and setting aside the demand for differential duty. The appeal was dismissed based on the Tribunal&#039;s modifications to the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>