<?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 (5) TMI 22 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247095</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the imported goods were not misdeclared, not hazardous per se, and could be processed for export as waste and scrap of plastic bottles, in compliance with the LOP and regulations. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, emphasizing the outsourcing arrangement for washing and the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue&#039;s claims of prohibited goods or misdeclaration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 22 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247095</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the imported goods were not misdeclared, not hazardous per se, and could be processed for export as waste and scrap of plastic bottles, in compliance with the LOP and regulations. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, emphasizing the outsourcing arrangement for washing and the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue&#039;s claims of prohibited goods or misdeclaration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>