<?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 (4) TMI 1297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198741</link>
    <description>Declared description in the bill of entry matched the supplier&#039;s documents, and examination showed the goods were old and used as declared. A contrary view that the goods were serviceable did not establish import of different goods or any misdeclaration. On that factual basis, confiscation was not made out, and the redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside. The ancillary issue concerning supply from the Exclusive Economic Zone was not examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:44:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198741</link>
      <description>Declared description in the bill of entry matched the supplier&#039;s documents, and examination showed the goods were old and used as declared. A contrary view that the goods were serviceable did not establish import of different goods or any misdeclaration. On that factual basis, confiscation was not made out, and the redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside. The ancillary issue concerning supply from the Exclusive Economic Zone was not examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>