<?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 (11) TMI 49 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350170</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Original Authority regarding the High Sea Sale transaction, discount rejection, and penalty imposition under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Sea Sale was deemed invalid due to discrepancies in agreement dates, leading to confiscation of goods with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. The rejection of a 20% discount claimed for valuation was upheld due to lack of justification and the special relationship between the involved companies. The penalties were maintained as the submission of a mis-declared document and involvement in signing a pre-dated agreement supported intentional violation findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 49 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350170</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Original Authority regarding the High Sea Sale transaction, discount rejection, and penalty imposition under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Sea Sale was deemed invalid due to discrepancies in agreement dates, leading to confiscation of goods with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. The rejection of a 20% discount claimed for valuation was upheld due to lack of justification and the special relationship between the involved companies. The penalties were maintained as the submission of a mis-declared document and involvement in signing a pre-dated agreement supported intentional violation findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>