<?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>1986 (9) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90570</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a customs case concerning the duty rate for unaccompanied baggage, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal accepted the appellant&#039;s argument that the landing certificate issued on the day of arrival sufficed as the required declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act, entitling the appellant to pay duty at the rate prevailing on that day. Due to the Department&#039;s failure to produce the original landing certificate and the absence of a prescribed form for declaration, the Tribunal concluded that the duty should have been levied based on the date of import stated in the certificate, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90570</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a customs case concerning the duty rate for unaccompanied baggage, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal accepted the appellant&#039;s argument that the landing certificate issued on the day of arrival sufficed as the required declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act, entitling the appellant to pay duty at the rate prevailing on that day. Due to the Department&#039;s failure to produce the original landing certificate and the absence of a prescribed form for declaration, the Tribunal concluded that the duty should have been levied based on the date of import stated in the certificate, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>