<?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>2000 (11) TMI 422 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95103</link>
    <description>The Tribunal determined the assessable value of seized watches at Rs. 135 per unit based on CIF value, reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 85,000. The penalty on the company was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and on the authorized signatory to Rs. 25,000. The confiscation of watches was upheld due to the appellants&#039; failure to prove legal import, with the Tribunal emphasizing the distinction between market value and CIF value for duty calculation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:20:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 422 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95103</link>
      <description>The Tribunal determined the assessable value of seized watches at Rs. 135 per unit based on CIF value, reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 85,000. The penalty on the company was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and on the authorized signatory to Rs. 25,000. The confiscation of watches was upheld due to the appellants&#039; failure to prove legal import, with the Tribunal emphasizing the distinction between market value and CIF value for duty calculation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>