<?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>2011 (3) TMI 214 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203783</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the decision to enhance the value and confiscate an imported car, a Lexus Hybrid LS 600 HL Rt Hand drive, finding that it was originally manufactured in Japan with enhancements in Belgium before being sold in the U.K. The appellant&#039;s argument that the car was manufactured in Belgium and imported from the U.K was rejected. The tribunal also upheld the decision to enhance the declared value of the car based on another import of the same model from the U.K. The tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the appellant violated import policy by not importing the car from its country of manufacture, upholding the redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 214 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203783</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the decision to enhance the value and confiscate an imported car, a Lexus Hybrid LS 600 HL Rt Hand drive, finding that it was originally manufactured in Japan with enhancements in Belgium before being sold in the U.K. The appellant&#039;s argument that the car was manufactured in Belgium and imported from the U.K was rejected. The tribunal also upheld the decision to enhance the declared value of the car based on another import of the same model from the U.K. The tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the appellant violated import policy by not importing the car from its country of manufacture, upholding the redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>