<?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>2006 (10) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1272</link>
    <description>Under the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978, exemption from customs duty on imported household articles depends on the importer&#039;s declaration that the goods were in possession and use abroad for the prescribed period. Once that declaration is made, the burden shifts to the Department to rebut it through examination of the goods and surrounding circumstances. On the facts noted, the importer&#039;s explanation of earlier purchase, installation abroad, and limited use was not controverted, and the authority gave no positive finding that the goods were not in possession and use for the required period. A refusal based only on the goods appearing new was therefore unsustainable, and the exemption could not be denied on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1272</link>
      <description>Under the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978, exemption from customs duty on imported household articles depends on the importer&#039;s declaration that the goods were in possession and use abroad for the prescribed period. Once that declaration is made, the burden shifts to the Department to rebut it through examination of the goods and surrounding circumstances. On the facts noted, the importer&#039;s explanation of earlier purchase, installation abroad, and limited use was not controverted, and the authority gave no positive finding that the goods were not in possession and use for the required period. A refusal based only on the goods appearing new was therefore unsustainable, and the exemption could not be denied on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>