<?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 (2) TMI 441 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243844</link>
    <description>Import of alcoholic beverage concentrate described for blending was held not to amount to proved misdescription under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act where the goods matched their commercial description and were not shown to be bottled potable whisky. No misdeclaration of quantity or value was established because the alleged quantity issue was outside the show-cause notice and the valuation comparison lacked evidentiary support. Individual liability of the co-noticee was also unsustainable, as personal involvement in the alleged contravention was not independently proved. On these findings, the penalty orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 441 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243844</link>
      <description>Import of alcoholic beverage concentrate described for blending was held not to amount to proved misdescription under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act where the goods matched their commercial description and were not shown to be bottled potable whisky. No misdeclaration of quantity or value was established because the alleged quantity issue was outside the show-cause notice and the valuation comparison lacked evidentiary support. Individual liability of the co-noticee was also unsustainable, as personal involvement in the alleged contravention was not independently proved. On these findings, the penalty orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>