<?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 (12) TMI 441 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114775</link>
    <description>Goods imported solely for repair by re-shelling and re-export were found to have been repaired and subsequently exported, so the basis for imposing redemption fine under the Customs Act was not established. Given the stated import purpose and the actual re-export after repair, the fine was held unjustified and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 10:11:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 441 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114775</link>
      <description>Goods imported solely for repair by re-shelling and re-export were found to have been repaired and subsequently exported, so the basis for imposing redemption fine under the Customs Act was not established. Given the stated import purpose and the actual re-export after repair, the fine was held unjustified and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>