<?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 (10) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91573</link>
    <description>Imported Aluminium Dross was treated as a restricted item under the Import Policy, which required a licence for import and contemplated use only for re-processing. Because no import licence was produced, the import was contrary to the policy. Confiscation of the goods was therefore justified, and the redemption fine was upheld as not excessive on the facts stated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:57:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91573</link>
      <description>Imported Aluminium Dross was treated as a restricted item under the Import Policy, which required a licence for import and contemplated use only for re-processing. Because no import licence was produced, the import was contrary to the policy. Confiscation of the goods was therefore justified, and the redemption fine was upheld as not excessive on the facts stated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>