<?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 (5) TMI 467 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) AIRPORT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116271</link>
    <description>Reliable identification evidence is required to support confiscation of an imported motor cycle or penalties for alleged breach of import conditions. A minor chassis-number discrepancy, by itself, was treated as insufficient where the bill of entry, passport, undertaking and other particulars matched and the Department could not show that the seized vehicle was different from the one imported. An alleged sale within two years also failed where ownership remained with the importer, no completed transfer was proved, and the power of attorney did not relate to the vehicle in question. On these facts, the confiscation and penalties were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:49:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 467 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) AIRPORT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116271</link>
      <description>Reliable identification evidence is required to support confiscation of an imported motor cycle or penalties for alleged breach of import conditions. A minor chassis-number discrepancy, by itself, was treated as insufficient where the bill of entry, passport, undertaking and other particulars matched and the Department could not show that the seized vehicle was different from the one imported. An alleged sale within two years also failed where ownership remained with the importer, no completed transfer was proved, and the power of attorney did not relate to the vehicle in question. On these facts, the confiscation and penalties were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>