<?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>2016 (2) TMI 355 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271650</link>
    <description>Imported cartridges described as .30 Mauser were examined as 7.62x25 win-pistol cartridges, but the Tribunal accepted that .30 bore in the British system corresponds to 7.62 in metric terms. Applying the functional test of whether the cartridges could be chambered and fired from a .30 Mauser pistol, it held that the goods fell within Para 2.34 of the Handbook of Procedures under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09. The Tribunal found no misdeclaration because the specifications matched the policy description, and therefore confiscation and penalty were not sustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting the import was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 355 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271650</link>
      <description>Imported cartridges described as .30 Mauser were examined as 7.62x25 win-pistol cartridges, but the Tribunal accepted that .30 bore in the British system corresponds to 7.62 in metric terms. Applying the functional test of whether the cartridges could be chambered and fired from a .30 Mauser pistol, it held that the goods fell within Para 2.34 of the Handbook of Procedures under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09. The Tribunal found no misdeclaration because the specifications matched the policy description, and therefore confiscation and penalty were not sustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting the import was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>