<?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>2009 (4) TMI 557 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216297</link>
    <description>Confiscation of an imported vehicle was challenged on the ground that it had not been imported directly from the country of manufacture but routed through Thailand. The documentary record, including the bill of lading and bill of entry, showed General Motors, Detroit as consignor, transhipment from Halifax, USA via Laem Chabang, and the United States of America as the country of origin. On that evidence, the Tribunal found the import condition satisfied and treated the dispute as one turning on appreciation of documents, not on any issue warranting appellate interference. The confiscation was therefore left undisturbed and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 557 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216297</link>
      <description>Confiscation of an imported vehicle was challenged on the ground that it had not been imported directly from the country of manufacture but routed through Thailand. The documentary record, including the bill of lading and bill of entry, showed General Motors, Detroit as consignor, transhipment from Halifax, USA via Laem Chabang, and the United States of America as the country of origin. On that evidence, the Tribunal found the import condition satisfied and treated the dispute as one turning on appreciation of documents, not on any issue warranting appellate interference. The confiscation was therefore left undisturbed and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>