<?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>2007 (3) TMI 125 - CESTAT, BANCALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1892</link>
    <description>A used imported car was liable to confiscation because the importer failed to satisfy the pre-import condition of one year&#039;s prior possession abroad, and that breach of import policy attracted customs confiscation. However, the declared transaction value could not be rejected because there were no cogent grounds to doubt the invoice or evidence of a higher payment, so alternative valuation under Rule 8 was unsustainable. On that basis, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 125 - CESTAT, BANCALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1892</link>
      <description>A used imported car was liable to confiscation because the importer failed to satisfy the pre-import condition of one year&#039;s prior possession abroad, and that breach of import policy attracted customs confiscation. However, the declared transaction value could not be rejected because there were no cogent grounds to doubt the invoice or evidence of a higher payment, so alternative valuation under Rule 8 was unsustainable. On that basis, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>