<?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>2006 (2) TMI 432 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117710</link>
    <description>Import control under the amended EXIM Policy was examined in relation to non-production of a pre-shipment inspection certificate. The amendment came into force while the goods were being loaded and shipped, and the supplier had certified that the consignment contained no arms, ammunition, explosives or war-related material; the goods were also subjected to 100% examination without objectionable material being found. On these facts, the omission to produce the certificate was treated as a non-intentional infraction, and the certificate requirement was regarded as a safeguard against prohibited goods rather than a basis for penal action. Confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:32:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 432 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117710</link>
      <description>Import control under the amended EXIM Policy was examined in relation to non-production of a pre-shipment inspection certificate. The amendment came into force while the goods were being loaded and shipped, and the supplier had certified that the consignment contained no arms, ammunition, explosives or war-related material; the goods were also subjected to 100% examination without objectionable material being found. On these facts, the omission to produce the certificate was treated as a non-intentional infraction, and the certificate requirement was regarded as a safeguard against prohibited goods rather than a basis for penal action. Confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>