<?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 731 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97685</link>
    <description>The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal related to the import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps from China, where customs authorities sought to enhance the goods&#039; value and confiscate them for alleged mis-declaration. The appellant disputed the comparison with goods from another entity, emphasizing differences in sourcing and product lifespan. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering the lifespan issue and remanded the case for a fresh decision, stressing the need for prompt resolution due to pending clearance. The original authority was directed to re-evaluate the matter within six weeks, urging the appellant&#039;s involvement for a swift outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:43:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 731 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97685</link>
      <description>The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal related to the import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps from China, where customs authorities sought to enhance the goods&#039; value and confiscate them for alleged mis-declaration. The appellant disputed the comparison with goods from another entity, emphasizing differences in sourcing and product lifespan. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering the lifespan issue and remanded the case for a fresh decision, stressing the need for prompt resolution due to pending clearance. The original authority was directed to re-evaluate the matter within six weeks, urging the appellant&#039;s involvement for a swift outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>