<?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 (7) TMI 714 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE, M</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108228</link>
    <description>Declared value of imported garlic was rejected on the facts, as contemporaneous material, market survey data and the applicant&#039;s own acceptance of differential duty supported enhancement under the valuation rules; the duty liability was settled on the enhanced value with duty already paid accepted in full settlement. The Commission also granted immunity from penalty, interest and prosecution because of the applicant&#039;s co-operation and true disclosure, but held that the goods remained liable to confiscation and that redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was still warranted. The fine was directed to be recovered from the bank guarantee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:39:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 714 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE, M</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108228</link>
      <description>Declared value of imported garlic was rejected on the facts, as contemporaneous material, market survey data and the applicant&#039;s own acceptance of differential duty supported enhancement under the valuation rules; the duty liability was settled on the enhanced value with duty already paid accepted in full settlement. The Commission also granted immunity from penalty, interest and prosecution because of the applicant&#039;s co-operation and true disclosure, but held that the goods remained liable to confiscation and that redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was still warranted. The fine was directed to be recovered from the bank guarantee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>