<?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>2005 (1) TMI 464 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114943</link>
    <description>Conditional waiver of pre-deposit was considered under the Customs Act where the goods were declared as Malaysian origin but investigation suggested Chinese origin, and the appellant was linked to dual bills of lading and the shipping agency. On these facts, the Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s involvement could not be prima facie excluded, so complete waiver of the penalty pre-deposit was not justified. Parity with the main importer was rejected because that waiver rested on a different factual basis, namely that the goods were already in customs custody. The appellant was required to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs within eight weeks, with waiver of the balance penalty and stay of recovery on compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 15:18:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 464 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114943</link>
      <description>Conditional waiver of pre-deposit was considered under the Customs Act where the goods were declared as Malaysian origin but investigation suggested Chinese origin, and the appellant was linked to dual bills of lading and the shipping agency. On these facts, the Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s involvement could not be prima facie excluded, so complete waiver of the penalty pre-deposit was not justified. Parity with the main importer was rejected because that waiver rested on a different factual basis, namely that the goods were already in customs custody. The appellant was required to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs within eight weeks, with waiver of the balance penalty and stay of recovery on compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>