<?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 533 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206108</link>
    <description>Goods imported by a 100% EOU under an amended letter of permission permitting pet bottles, plastic scrap and articles of plastics could not be treated as prohibited goods merely because washing was not available at the importer&#039;s own unit. The record showed an approved arrangement for washing through a Gujarat unit with requisite clearance, and the jurisdictional Central Excise authority had permitted movement of the goods for that processing. The original view relied mainly on Pollution Control Board advice without adequately considering this arrangement. On that basis, the import was not prohibited, misdeclaration was not established, and confiscation with penalty was not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 533 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206108</link>
      <description>Goods imported by a 100% EOU under an amended letter of permission permitting pet bottles, plastic scrap and articles of plastics could not be treated as prohibited goods merely because washing was not available at the importer&#039;s own unit. The record showed an approved arrangement for washing through a Gujarat unit with requisite clearance, and the jurisdictional Central Excise authority had permitted movement of the goods for that processing. The original view relied mainly on Pollution Control Board advice without adequately considering this arrangement. On that basis, the import was not prohibited, misdeclaration was not established, and confiscation with penalty was not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>