<?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 (7) TMI 457 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94182</link>
    <description>Imported office furniture consisting of single pieces of several articles was treated as bona fide technical and trade samples under para 98 of Chapter V of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97, because the record supported sample import and the goods were of modest CIF value. The policy allowed free import of bona fide samples within the prescribed value limit, subject to compliance with other law and without foreign exchange remittance. The Department did not establish that export orders or an intention to manufacture furniture were preconditions to the benefit, and the burden to disprove bona fide sample import was not discharged. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was therefore not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:18:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 457 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94182</link>
      <description>Imported office furniture consisting of single pieces of several articles was treated as bona fide technical and trade samples under para 98 of Chapter V of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97, because the record supported sample import and the goods were of modest CIF value. The policy allowed free import of bona fide samples within the prescribed value limit, subject to compliance with other law and without foreign exchange remittance. The Department did not establish that export orders or an intention to manufacture furniture were preconditions to the benefit, and the burden to disprove bona fide sample import was not discharged. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was therefore not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>