<?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>2018 (1) TMI 573 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353837</link>
    <description>Used and old imported machinery was treated as ineligible for EPCG zero-duty benefit where its second-hand condition was admitted. Revaluation under the Customs Valuation Rules was not warranted without evidence that the declared invoice value was false or valid grounds to reject transaction value. Classification for CVD exemption followed the headings applicable to the goods as imported under the General Rules for Interpretation, rather than the importer&#039;s claimed heading. Admission of evidence and inspection material was not found procedurally defective. Redemption fine and penalties were regarded as within statutory parameters, and the impugned order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 573 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353837</link>
      <description>Used and old imported machinery was treated as ineligible for EPCG zero-duty benefit where its second-hand condition was admitted. Revaluation under the Customs Valuation Rules was not warranted without evidence that the declared invoice value was false or valid grounds to reject transaction value. Classification for CVD exemption followed the headings applicable to the goods as imported under the General Rules for Interpretation, rather than the importer&#039;s claimed heading. Admission of evidence and inspection material was not found procedurally defective. Redemption fine and penalties were regarded as within statutory parameters, and the impugned order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>