<?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>1997 (4) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90381</link>
    <description>Second-hand knitting machines imported under Open General Licence had to satisfy the applicable age restriction of less than seven years. On the evidence, that condition was proved to be breached only for four identified machines, so confiscation was sustainable only in that limited respect. For the remaining machines, non-compliance was not established and confiscation could not stand. Because the goods had already been provisionally released, the redemption fine was reduced. Personal penalties were set aside because the department did not prove the importers&#039; knowledge, understanding, or reasonable belief that the machines were liable to confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:31:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90381</link>
      <description>Second-hand knitting machines imported under Open General Licence had to satisfy the applicable age restriction of less than seven years. On the evidence, that condition was proved to be breached only for four identified machines, so confiscation was sustainable only in that limited respect. For the remaining machines, non-compliance was not established and confiscation could not stand. Because the goods had already been provisionally released, the redemption fine was reduced. Personal penalties were set aside because the department did not prove the importers&#039; knowledge, understanding, or reasonable belief that the machines were liable to confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>