<?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 1188 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351309</link>
    <description>Customs duty on an aircraft imported for later Indian registration was held unsustainable where the first importer removed it from India within the permitted period and the record showed no application to register the aircraft in India. An intention for future non-scheduled operations, by itself, did not establish breach of the original import declaration, so confiscation and penalties failed. For the later import, liability had to attach to the actual importer and not be imposed jointly and severally on separate corporate entities merely because they belonged to the same group. The customs authority at Delhi lacked jurisdiction over the Mumbai import, making the joint demand invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:06:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1188 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351309</link>
      <description>Customs duty on an aircraft imported for later Indian registration was held unsustainable where the first importer removed it from India within the permitted period and the record showed no application to register the aircraft in India. An intention for future non-scheduled operations, by itself, did not establish breach of the original import declaration, so confiscation and penalties failed. For the later import, liability had to attach to the actual importer and not be imposed jointly and severally on separate corporate entities merely because they belonged to the same group. The customs authority at Delhi lacked jurisdiction over the Mumbai import, making the joint demand invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>