<?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 515 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119041</link>
    <description>Bona fide import documents and a Port Health Officer&#039;s indication of edible-grade conformity defeated the allegation of deliberate misdeclaration in respect of imported crude palm oil, so confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not sustained. A later adverse test report and the appellants&#039; steps to re-export the cargo did not establish the culpable element required for penal consequences. However, differential duty remained payable on the 500 MT already provisionally cleared, because that quantity continued to attract duty liability notwithstanding re-export of the balance cargo. The decision therefore relieved the appellants from confiscation and penalties, but upheld duty liability on the provisionally cleared quantity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:11:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 515 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119041</link>
      <description>Bona fide import documents and a Port Health Officer&#039;s indication of edible-grade conformity defeated the allegation of deliberate misdeclaration in respect of imported crude palm oil, so confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not sustained. A later adverse test report and the appellants&#039; steps to re-export the cargo did not establish the culpable element required for penal consequences. However, differential duty remained payable on the 500 MT already provisionally cleared, because that quantity continued to attract duty liability notwithstanding re-export of the balance cargo. The decision therefore relieved the appellants from confiscation and penalties, but upheld duty liability on the provisionally cleared quantity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>