<?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 (4) TMI 1173 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212675</link>
    <description>Import of a car from Japan could not be penalised for non-production of a type approval certificate where the accredited Japanese agency had declined to issue a certificate confirming compliance with all ECE regulations. The earlier binding High Court principle that an importer cannot be required to produce an impossible document was applied, and the distinction attempted by the adjudicating authority was rejected. On that basis, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside in favour of the importer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1173 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212675</link>
      <description>Import of a car from Japan could not be penalised for non-production of a type approval certificate where the accredited Japanese agency had declined to issue a certificate confirming compliance with all ECE regulations. The earlier binding High Court principle that an importer cannot be required to produce an impossible document was applied, and the distinction attempted by the adjudicating authority was rejected. On that basis, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside in favour of the importer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>