<?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 (11) TMI 1041 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239864</link>
    <description>Imported goods described as synthetic waste were found, on bill of lading details, bale labels, laboratory reports and related correspondence, to be virgin acrylic staple fibre of commercial quality. The description had been altered in transit at the importer&#039;s instance, so the exemption notification was claimed without entitlement. The document states that this deliberate misdescription and suppression of the true nature of the goods amounted to fraud on Revenue. On that basis, confiscation, duty demand and penalties on the importer and connected persons were treated as sustainable, and the departmental evidence was not discredited by testing or cross-examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:07:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1041 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239864</link>
      <description>Imported goods described as synthetic waste were found, on bill of lading details, bale labels, laboratory reports and related correspondence, to be virgin acrylic staple fibre of commercial quality. The description had been altered in transit at the importer&#039;s instance, so the exemption notification was claimed without entitlement. The document states that this deliberate misdescription and suppression of the true nature of the goods amounted to fraud on Revenue. On that basis, confiscation, duty demand and penalties on the importer and connected persons were treated as sustainable, and the departmental evidence was not discredited by testing or cross-examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>