<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1018 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242802</link>
    <description>Imported pre-packaged consumer goods required to bear MRP declarations on each package before clearance were treated as liable to confiscation when cleared without such stickers, even though MRP had been declared in the Bill of Entry for customs assessment. The applicable packaging requirements under the Standards of Weights and Measures framework were treated as mandatory, and the absence of evidence that the packages were properly marked before clearance was held to constitute a violation of import policy conditions. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore sustained as reasonable, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:28:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1018 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242802</link>
      <description>Imported pre-packaged consumer goods required to bear MRP declarations on each package before clearance were treated as liable to confiscation when cleared without such stickers, even though MRP had been declared in the Bill of Entry for customs assessment. The applicable packaging requirements under the Standards of Weights and Measures framework were treated as mandatory, and the absence of evidence that the packages were properly marked before clearance was held to constitute a violation of import policy conditions. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore sustained as reasonable, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>