<?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 (10) TMI 211 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208319</link>
    <description>Returnable racks re-imported for use as packaging material for export tractors were treated as eligible goods for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus because the addendum to the Letter of Undertaking, identifying the racks as eligible goods, was obtained before actual clearance from customs. Paragraph 2.26 of the EXIM Policy was applied to permit clearance of goods already imported or arrived in advance against a subsequently issued authorization. As the racks were moved to bonded premises for a 100% Export Oriented Unit, exemption could not be denied merely because the supporting authorization was not available when the Bill of Entry was filed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 211 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208319</link>
      <description>Returnable racks re-imported for use as packaging material for export tractors were treated as eligible goods for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus because the addendum to the Letter of Undertaking, identifying the racks as eligible goods, was obtained before actual clearance from customs. Paragraph 2.26 of the EXIM Policy was applied to permit clearance of goods already imported or arrived in advance against a subsequently issued authorization. As the racks were moved to bonded premises for a 100% Export Oriented Unit, exemption could not be denied merely because the supporting authorization was not available when the Bill of Entry was filed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>