<?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>2013 (1) TMI 506 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220401</link>
    <description>Differing views are recorded on whether motor vehicles routed through intermediary countries can still satisfy an import policy condition requiring import from the country of manufacture, with one view accepting documentary proof of origin movement and another insisting on direct import. On homologation or type approval certificates, one view applied the principle that the law does not compel impossibilities, while the other treated the certificate issue as not displacing confiscation based on the main import-condition breach. The text also records conflicting views on confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, and states that the matter was referred on a difference of opinion without final resolution in the supplied material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 506 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220401</link>
      <description>Differing views are recorded on whether motor vehicles routed through intermediary countries can still satisfy an import policy condition requiring import from the country of manufacture, with one view accepting documentary proof of origin movement and another insisting on direct import. On homologation or type approval certificates, one view applied the principle that the law does not compel impossibilities, while the other treated the certificate issue as not displacing confiscation based on the main import-condition breach. The text also records conflicting views on confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, and states that the matter was referred on a difference of opinion without final resolution in the supplied material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>