<?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 (10) TMI 344 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108054</link>
    <description>Expert examination showed that the imported consignment was partly new and serviceable circular saw blades and partly scrap, so the declaration could be accepted only to the extent it matched the actual goods. Valuation of the new blades was upheld on the basis of comparable cleared goods, while the scrap portion could not be valued by reference to earlier second-hand imports and the declared value for that balance was accepted. Confiscation based on prohibited import and licence requirements was set aside because the goods were not wholly prohibited, but confiscation for material misdeclaration was sustained, with redemption fine and one penalty reduced and the penalty on the power-of-attorney holder set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:31:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 344 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108054</link>
      <description>Expert examination showed that the imported consignment was partly new and serviceable circular saw blades and partly scrap, so the declaration could be accepted only to the extent it matched the actual goods. Valuation of the new blades was upheld on the basis of comparable cleared goods, while the scrap portion could not be valued by reference to earlier second-hand imports and the declared value for that balance was accepted. Confiscation based on prohibited import and licence requirements was set aside because the goods were not wholly prohibited, but confiscation for material misdeclaration was sustained, with redemption fine and one penalty reduced and the penalty on the power-of-attorney holder set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>