<?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>1995 (12) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104335</link>
    <description>Duty-free imports under the Pass Book scheme required prior disclosure and endorsement where goods were to be used through an intermediate manufacturer or in the importer&#039;s own factory. The absence of the intermediate manufacturer&#039;s name on the Pass Book at the material time meant the exemption conditions were not met, and a later endorsement did not cure the earlier non-compliance. The policy requirements were not otherwise shown to have been satisfied by actual processing in the importer&#039;s factory, so confiscation under the Customs Act was justified. Subsequent documents evidencing export obligation compliance were treated as mitigating factors, leading to reduction of the redemption fine and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:03:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104335</link>
      <description>Duty-free imports under the Pass Book scheme required prior disclosure and endorsement where goods were to be used through an intermediate manufacturer or in the importer&#039;s own factory. The absence of the intermediate manufacturer&#039;s name on the Pass Book at the material time meant the exemption conditions were not met, and a later endorsement did not cure the earlier non-compliance. The policy requirements were not otherwise shown to have been satisfied by actual processing in the importer&#039;s factory, so confiscation under the Customs Act was justified. Subsequent documents evidencing export obligation compliance were treated as mitigating factors, leading to reduction of the redemption fine and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>