<?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 (4) TMI 138 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326024</link>
    <description>Old and used photocopiers imported before 19-10-2005 were treated as freely importable second-hand capital goods, so no import licence was required and confiscation, fine and penalty for alleged policy breach were not sustainable. The later import restriction applied only from the date of the policy amendment. By contrast, enhancement of value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules was upheld because the declared value had been rejected by the adjudicating authority and the challenge to revaluation failed. Relief was therefore confined to setting aside the fine and penalty, while the valuation enhancement and remaining parts of the order were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 138 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326024</link>
      <description>Old and used photocopiers imported before 19-10-2005 were treated as freely importable second-hand capital goods, so no import licence was required and confiscation, fine and penalty for alleged policy breach were not sustainable. The later import restriction applied only from the date of the policy amendment. By contrast, enhancement of value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules was upheld because the declared value had been rejected by the adjudicating authority and the challenge to revaluation failed. Relief was therefore confined to setting aside the fine and penalty, while the valuation enhancement and remaining parts of the order were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>