<?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 (8) TMI 807 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210866</link>
    <description>Confiscation of non-prohibited imported goods was found unsustainable where the adjudicating authority denied the statutorily mandated option of redemption in lieu of confiscation. On valuation, redetermination based on an unverified market survey could not stand when contemporaneous import evidence had been produced and was not addressed in the order. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for de novo adjudication with consideration of the evidence already on record and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 807 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210866</link>
      <description>Confiscation of non-prohibited imported goods was found unsustainable where the adjudicating authority denied the statutorily mandated option of redemption in lieu of confiscation. On valuation, redetermination based on an unverified market survey could not stand when contemporaneous import evidence had been produced and was not addressed in the order. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for de novo adjudication with consideration of the evidence already on record and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>