<?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 (12) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219146</link>
    <description>The High Court affirmed the CESTAT&#039;s decision confirming a duty demand of Rs. 12,31,86,708/- and penalty, ordering confiscation of diamonds, and imposing a redemption fine. The appellant&#039;s failure to maintain proper records led to the upheld confiscation of diamonds imported without payment of duty and exported without proof of licit import. The court rejected the appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the correlation of imported and exported diamonds, emphasizing the necessity of consignment-wise value addition verification. The judgment favored the respondent, granting a stay of eight weeks upon the appellant&#039;s request.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219146</link>
      <description>The High Court affirmed the CESTAT&#039;s decision confirming a duty demand of Rs. 12,31,86,708/- and penalty, ordering confiscation of diamonds, and imposing a redemption fine. The appellant&#039;s failure to maintain proper records led to the upheld confiscation of diamonds imported without payment of duty and exported without proof of licit import. The court rejected the appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the correlation of imported and exported diamonds, emphasizing the necessity of consignment-wise value addition verification. The judgment favored the respondent, granting a stay of eight weeks upon the appellant&#039;s request.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>