<?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 (9) TMI 365 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92740</link>
    <description>Under the 1992-97 Export and Import Policy, consumer goods could be imported only against a licence or under a public notice, and Public Notice No. 32/92 allowed accessories, component parts and spares of consumer durables only if they were not on the negative list. On that basis, PCB sub-assemblies imported as components of quartz clock movement were treated as licensable goods and remained liable to confiscation and redemption fine where no licence or applicable exemption was shown. The commentary also notes that a separate personal penalty on a partner was not justified when the firm had already been penalised on the same facts without an independent basis for additional liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:05:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 365 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92740</link>
      <description>Under the 1992-97 Export and Import Policy, consumer goods could be imported only against a licence or under a public notice, and Public Notice No. 32/92 allowed accessories, component parts and spares of consumer durables only if they were not on the negative list. On that basis, PCB sub-assemblies imported as components of quartz clock movement were treated as licensable goods and remained liable to confiscation and redemption fine where no licence or applicable exemption was shown. The commentary also notes that a separate personal penalty on a partner was not justified when the firm had already been penalised on the same facts without an independent basis for additional liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>