<?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>2002 (5) TMI 714 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106336</link>
    <description>Supply of coated pipes to ONGC for laying beyond territorial waters was treated as export for customs exemption purposes, because the evidence showed actual delivery and laying in non-designated areas outside India for the relevant maritime law purpose. The exemption was not available only to the limited extent of pipes laid within 12 nautical miles, which required factual verification against the permitted domestic clearance limit. The customs duty demand on ONGC-imported pipes could not be fastened on the appellant, who was not the importer, and confiscation and penalty were not made out on a provisional assessment record where the department knew the facts. Interest was also held inapplicable, as the relevant provision did not govern these provisional assessments and had not yet operated for the imports.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:15:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 714 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106336</link>
      <description>Supply of coated pipes to ONGC for laying beyond territorial waters was treated as export for customs exemption purposes, because the evidence showed actual delivery and laying in non-designated areas outside India for the relevant maritime law purpose. The exemption was not available only to the limited extent of pipes laid within 12 nautical miles, which required factual verification against the permitted domestic clearance limit. The customs duty demand on ONGC-imported pipes could not be fastened on the appellant, who was not the importer, and confiscation and penalty were not made out on a provisional assessment record where the department knew the facts. Interest was also held inapplicable, as the relevant provision did not govern these provisional assessments and had not yet operated for the imports.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>