<?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 (12) TMI 320 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335675</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the customs duty demand and interest while setting aside the penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. It determined that imported drawings and designs are considered goods, thus subject to duty liability. The Tribunal also clarified the valuation method for customs duty levy, emphasizing uniform application of deductions. Penalties were deemed unwarranted due to the ongoing dispute regarding the classification of drawings and designs as goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 320 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335675</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the customs duty demand and interest while setting aside the penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. It determined that imported drawings and designs are considered goods, thus subject to duty liability. The Tribunal also clarified the valuation method for customs duty levy, emphasizing uniform application of deductions. Penalties were deemed unwarranted due to the ongoing dispute regarding the classification of drawings and designs as goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>