<?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>2004 (3) TMI 565 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111676</link>
    <description>The case involved allegations of under-invoicing and misdeclaration of camera values leading to customs duty evasion. The Commissioner upheld the charges based on evidence from Hong Kong Customs and seized documents, imposing a demand for short-levied duty and penalties. The Tribunal found the under-valuation established and penalties justified. The appellants contested the evidence&#039;s validity, but the Tribunal confirmed the deliberate attempt to evade duty. The imposition of the redemption fine was set aside based on procedural grounds. The appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the redemption fine while confirming the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:41:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 565 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111676</link>
      <description>The case involved allegations of under-invoicing and misdeclaration of camera values leading to customs duty evasion. The Commissioner upheld the charges based on evidence from Hong Kong Customs and seized documents, imposing a demand for short-levied duty and penalties. The Tribunal found the under-valuation established and penalties justified. The appellants contested the evidence&#039;s validity, but the Tribunal confirmed the deliberate attempt to evade duty. The imposition of the redemption fine was set aside based on procedural grounds. The appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the redemption fine while confirming the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>