<?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>2012 (11) TMI 639 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218624</link>
    <description>Import of old and used photocopier parts was treated as restricted because the Foreign Trade Policy barred import of second-hand goods, and a description as &quot;parts&quot; did not remove that restriction. The confiscation under the Customs Act was therefore upheld. On penalty, the recurring nature of the imports justified both redemption fine and penalty, but the amounts were found disproportionately high compared with the assessable value and were reduced to a more reasonable level while preserving deterrence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 639 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218624</link>
      <description>Import of old and used photocopier parts was treated as restricted because the Foreign Trade Policy barred import of second-hand goods, and a description as &quot;parts&quot; did not remove that restriction. The confiscation under the Customs Act was therefore upheld. On penalty, the recurring nature of the imports justified both redemption fine and penalty, but the amounts were found disproportionately high compared with the assessable value and were reduced to a more reasonable level while preserving deterrence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>