<?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 (6) TMI 337 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248433</link>
    <description>Imported goods that are not absolutely prohibited may be allowed to be redeemed for home consumption on payment of redemption fine, even where confiscation under the Customs Act is sustained. In this matter, the absence of a valid BIS certificate and the quality control regime did not justify confining the new passenger car radial tyres to re-export, because they were not barred from entry into India altogether. The appellate authority&#039;s decision to permit clearance for home consumption on the existing redemption fine was upheld, and interference with the quantified fine was refused in the absence of proof that it was excessive or legally unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 337 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248433</link>
      <description>Imported goods that are not absolutely prohibited may be allowed to be redeemed for home consumption on payment of redemption fine, even where confiscation under the Customs Act is sustained. In this matter, the absence of a valid BIS certificate and the quality control regime did not justify confining the new passenger car radial tyres to re-export, because they were not barred from entry into India altogether. The appellate authority&#039;s decision to permit clearance for home consumption on the existing redemption fine was upheld, and interference with the quantified fine was refused in the absence of proof that it was excessive or legally unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>