<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1195 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340692</link>
    <description>Import of 18 moulds under the Project Import Regulations was examined by reference to the timing of registration and the manner of clearance. The 10 moulds imported before registration of the project contract were cleared on payment of normal customs duty without claiming project import benefits, so no contravention could be attributed to them. The remaining 8 moulds were imported after registration, cleared under the registered project import arrangement, and supported by the installation report and reconciliation statement. On that basis, the commentary states there was no foundation for differential duty demand or confiscation under the Customs Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Mar 2017 08:23:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1195 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340692</link>
      <description>Import of 18 moulds under the Project Import Regulations was examined by reference to the timing of registration and the manner of clearance. The 10 moulds imported before registration of the project contract were cleared on payment of normal customs duty without claiming project import benefits, so no contravention could be attributed to them. The remaining 8 moulds were imported after registration, cleared under the registered project import arrangement, and supported by the installation report and reconciliation statement. On that basis, the commentary states there was no foundation for differential duty demand or confiscation under the Customs Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>