<?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>1999 (5) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91449</link>
    <description>Humanitarian exemption under Notification No. 258/90-Cus. for repatriates was applied to imported vehicles by assessing the surrounding circumstances, registration evidence, and the limited reliability of disputed departmental material. The Tribunal treated documentary discrepancies and untested auxiliary evidence as insufficient, by themselves, to defeat the exemption where the importer&#039;s claim was otherwise supported. It also noted that the benefit could not extend to more than one car per family. Absolute confiscation was avoided in favour of redemption on payment of fine, while penalties were generally retained but reduced where the facts justified a proportionate response.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:01:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91449</link>
      <description>Humanitarian exemption under Notification No. 258/90-Cus. for repatriates was applied to imported vehicles by assessing the surrounding circumstances, registration evidence, and the limited reliability of disputed departmental material. The Tribunal treated documentary discrepancies and untested auxiliary evidence as insufficient, by themselves, to defeat the exemption where the importer&#039;s claim was otherwise supported. It also noted that the benefit could not extend to more than one car per family. Absolute confiscation was avoided in favour of redemption on payment of fine, while penalties were generally retained but reduced where the facts justified a proportionate response.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>