<?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 (6) TMI 347 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111846</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision to confiscate imported batteries due to misdeclaration of rechargeable status and undervaluation. The appellant&#039;s explanations were rejected, and the Tribunal emphasized the importer&#039;s responsibility for accurate declarations. The Customs authorities were justified in reassessing the goods based on their own pricing, leading to confiscation. The Tribunal found the declared values false and lacking essential particulars for proper valuation, supporting the imposition of fines and penalties. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the confiscation based on misdeclaration and undervaluation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 347 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111846</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision to confiscate imported batteries due to misdeclaration of rechargeable status and undervaluation. The appellant&#039;s explanations were rejected, and the Tribunal emphasized the importer&#039;s responsibility for accurate declarations. The Customs authorities were justified in reassessing the goods based on their own pricing, leading to confiscation. The Tribunal found the declared values false and lacking essential particulars for proper valuation, supporting the imposition of fines and penalties. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the confiscation based on misdeclaration and undervaluation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>