<?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 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120488</link>
    <description>Imported second-hand diesel engines were treated as consumer goods, not capital goods, because the importer failed to establish eligibility under the Exim Policy and did not produce the specific import licence required. On that basis, confiscation under the Customs Act was sustained, and the claimed exemption under Notification No. 211/83-Cus. was denied because the importer could not show that the engines were meant for repairs of ocean-going vessels or otherwise satisfied the notification conditions. The attempt to reopen the auction issue in a later round was also not entertained, as no basis was shown to challenge the auction proceedings at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:59:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120488</link>
      <description>Imported second-hand diesel engines were treated as consumer goods, not capital goods, because the importer failed to establish eligibility under the Exim Policy and did not produce the specific import licence required. On that basis, confiscation under the Customs Act was sustained, and the claimed exemption under Notification No. 211/83-Cus. was denied because the importer could not show that the engines were meant for repairs of ocean-going vessels or otherwise satisfied the notification conditions. The attempt to reopen the auction issue in a later round was also not entertained, as no basis was shown to challenge the auction proceedings at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>