<?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>2010 (8) TMI 422 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203404</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous imports by related entities were clubbed under Rule 2(a) because the evidence showed a deliberate splitting of complementary components into separate bills of entry to present complete radio cassette recorders and rechargeable lights as parts and evade licensing control; the goods were therefore treated as CKD/SKD imports. Admissions recorded under Section 108 supported suppression with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period, confiscation, and penalty under Section 114A were upheld, while penalty under Section 112 was excluded and Section 111(o) held inapplicable. The matter was remanded only for duty quantification, penalty determination under Section 114A, and consideration of redemption fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 422 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203404</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous imports by related entities were clubbed under Rule 2(a) because the evidence showed a deliberate splitting of complementary components into separate bills of entry to present complete radio cassette recorders and rechargeable lights as parts and evade licensing control; the goods were therefore treated as CKD/SKD imports. Admissions recorded under Section 108 supported suppression with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period, confiscation, and penalty under Section 114A were upheld, while penalty under Section 112 was excluded and Section 111(o) held inapplicable. The matter was remanded only for duty quantification, penalty determination under Section 114A, and consideration of redemption fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>