<?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>1998 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88174</link>
    <description>Compressors fitted to reefer containers were held not to be ship&#039;s stores under para 11(d) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, because a marine container remains multimodal transport equipment and does not become part of the ship merely by being carried on board or receiving electricity from it; the confiscation order was therefore upheld on this ground. The alternative claim to free import under Entry 12 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy also failed because the exemption was conditional on registration with the Directorate General of Shipping, and no proof of such registration was produced. The appeal failed and the confiscation order remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:13:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88174</link>
      <description>Compressors fitted to reefer containers were held not to be ship&#039;s stores under para 11(d) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, because a marine container remains multimodal transport equipment and does not become part of the ship merely by being carried on board or receiving electricity from it; the confiscation order was therefore upheld on this ground. The alternative claim to free import under Entry 12 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy also failed because the exemption was conditional on registration with the Directorate General of Shipping, and no proof of such registration was produced. The appeal failed and the confiscation order remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>