<?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 (5) TMI 411 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109516</link>
    <description>Imports made exclusively under a tender for Indian Navy defence requirements were treated as eligible for the statutory benefit under Section 3(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Denial of that benefit was found unjustified where the goods were not for general consumer use or resale, earlier consignments had been cleared on the same basis, and the importer had acted on an established treatment pattern. The reasoning emphasises fairness and prior notice before changing a settled position affecting defence-related imports, and concludes that the proposed confiscatory and penal consequence could not be sustained on that denial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:55:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 411 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109516</link>
      <description>Imports made exclusively under a tender for Indian Navy defence requirements were treated as eligible for the statutory benefit under Section 3(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Denial of that benefit was found unjustified where the goods were not for general consumer use or resale, earlier consignments had been cleared on the same basis, and the importer had acted on an established treatment pattern. The reasoning emphasises fairness and prior notice before changing a settled position affecting defence-related imports, and concludes that the proposed confiscatory and penal consequence could not be sustained on that denial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>