<?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>2003 (4) TMI 372 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107700</link>
    <description>Where the competent customs authority allowed amendment of the Import General Manifest and the bills of entry were filed consistently with the amended weight, the earlier discrepancy could not sustain a charge of misdeclaration. The accepted amendment displaced the original manifest entry, and since Revenue did not dispute the amendment or its acceptance, the allegation became non-est in law. The order dropping the proceedings therefore required no interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:58:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 372 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107700</link>
      <description>Where the competent customs authority allowed amendment of the Import General Manifest and the bills of entry were filed consistently with the amended weight, the earlier discrepancy could not sustain a charge of misdeclaration. The accepted amendment displaced the original manifest entry, and since Revenue did not dispute the amendment or its acceptance, the allegation became non-est in law. The order dropping the proceedings therefore required no interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>