<?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>2008 (12) TMI 463 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124695</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous import documents describing heavy melting scrap, including the bill of lading, invoice, pre-shipment inspection certificate and high-sea sale papers, were treated as the primary evidence of the goods&#039; description. Physical examination alone was found insufficient to establish misdeclaration where the Department produced no expert evidence that the cargo was serviceable or that the declared description was false. The absence of a registered branch office issuing the inspection certificate did not, on these facts, justify denial of relief, especially where the import predated the clarification relied upon by the Department. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable and relief was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 09:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 463 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124695</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous import documents describing heavy melting scrap, including the bill of lading, invoice, pre-shipment inspection certificate and high-sea sale papers, were treated as the primary evidence of the goods&#039; description. Physical examination alone was found insufficient to establish misdeclaration where the Department produced no expert evidence that the cargo was serviceable or that the declared description was false. The absence of a registered branch office issuing the inspection certificate did not, on these facts, justify denial of relief, especially where the import predated the clarification relied upon by the Department. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable and relief was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>