<?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 (8) TMI 829 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105124</link>
    <description>Pending final adjudication of a customs confiscation dispute, interim permission was granted to break the ship only on securing the redemption fine by bank guarantee and completing the required formalities. The record was treated as showing a prima facie basis for provisional confiscation because admissions from the vessel owner&#039;s representative suggested that parts had been removed while the vessel remained within the customs area. The explanation that only loose, spare or defective parts had been taken out was not accepted at the interim stage, and the absence of fencing or boundary protection did not displace that prima facie view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:53:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 829 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105124</link>
      <description>Pending final adjudication of a customs confiscation dispute, interim permission was granted to break the ship only on securing the redemption fine by bank guarantee and completing the required formalities. The record was treated as showing a prima facie basis for provisional confiscation because admissions from the vessel owner&#039;s representative suggested that parts had been removed while the vessel remained within the customs area. The explanation that only loose, spare or defective parts had been taken out was not accepted at the interim stage, and the absence of fencing or boundary protection did not displace that prima facie view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>