<?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 (7) TMI 368 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85992</link>
    <description>Import clearance under an actual user industrial condition requires genuine manufacturing infrastructure and activity; absence of power connection, workmen, and real assembly at the declared premises meant the condition was not satisfied, so confiscation under customs law was sustainable. Undervaluation was not established because the department relied on prices from a different source market rather than reliable contemporaneous comparable imports for the same goods at the same time and place. Confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and one penalty were reduced and the other penalty was set aside because the enhanced valuation basis failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:08:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 368 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85992</link>
      <description>Import clearance under an actual user industrial condition requires genuine manufacturing infrastructure and activity; absence of power connection, workmen, and real assembly at the declared premises meant the condition was not satisfied, so confiscation under customs law was sustainable. Undervaluation was not established because the department relied on prices from a different source market rather than reliable contemporaneous comparable imports for the same goods at the same time and place. Confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and one penalty were reduced and the other penalty was set aside because the enhanced valuation basis failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>