<?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 (10) TMI 130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333110</link>
    <description>Import of a new type of car into India for the first time required compliance with the homologation requirement, and the importer&#039;s failure to produce the requisite certificate justified confiscation under Customs law. The argument that the motor vehicle rules did not apply to an individual importer was rejected because the compliance obligation attached to the import itself. Confiscation and consequential penalties were therefore sustained, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333110</link>
      <description>Import of a new type of car into India for the first time required compliance with the homologation requirement, and the importer&#039;s failure to produce the requisite certificate justified confiscation under Customs law. The argument that the motor vehicle rules did not apply to an individual importer was rejected because the compliance obligation attached to the import itself. Confiscation and consequential penalties were therefore sustained, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>