<?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>2007 (9) TMI 491 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122889</link>
    <description>Imported goods declared as heavy melting scrap were found on 100% examination to be predominantly prime quality steel rods of uniform length and diameter, not unusable metal waste. Applying Section Note 8(a) of Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act, the goods were therefore not classifiable as scrap and were treated as prime quality steel rods under Chapter Heading 7214. Because the goods were not scrap, the declared scrap value could not be accepted and valuation based on contemporaneous imports and NIDB data was upheld. On confiscation, the statutory protection in the proviso to Section 120(2) of the Customs Act required examination of the owner&#039;s knowledge; the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were remitted for limited reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 491 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122889</link>
      <description>Imported goods declared as heavy melting scrap were found on 100% examination to be predominantly prime quality steel rods of uniform length and diameter, not unusable metal waste. Applying Section Note 8(a) of Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act, the goods were therefore not classifiable as scrap and were treated as prime quality steel rods under Chapter Heading 7214. Because the goods were not scrap, the declared scrap value could not be accepted and valuation based on contemporaneous imports and NIDB data was upheld. On confiscation, the statutory protection in the proviso to Section 120(2) of the Customs Act required examination of the owner&#039;s knowledge; the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were remitted for limited reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>