<?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>2000 (7) TMI 914 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109580</link>
    <description>Epoxy-based sealants imported for repairing worn parts and sealing pipes were treated as consumer goods under the import policy because they could be used by individuals in homes or offices for ordinary purposes, and the record did not show that such use was impossible. Their high value was held irrelevant to the consumer-goods classification. As the goods were consumer goods imported without a licence, confiscation under Section 111(d) was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:13:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 914 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109580</link>
      <description>Epoxy-based sealants imported for repairing worn parts and sealing pipes were treated as consumer goods under the import policy because they could be used by individuals in homes or offices for ordinary purposes, and the record did not show that such use was impossible. Their high value was held irrelevant to the consumer-goods classification. As the goods were consumer goods imported without a licence, confiscation under Section 111(d) was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>