https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364234 Imported goods were held not to have undergone a manufacturing process merely because testing and calibration were asserted, where stock records, computer entries and statements showed the items were booked as trading goods and were not taken to the shop floor for production. On those facts, the clearance was treated as clearance of the imported goods as such, and the differential customs duty demand was sustained. The rejection of the testing-and-calibration defence, being contrary to contemporaneous records, also supported the finding of lack of bona fides, so the penalty was upheld. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:46:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364234 Imported goods were held not to have undergone a manufacturing process merely because testing and calibration were asserted, where stock records, computer entries and statements showed the items were booked as trading goods and were not taken to the shop floor for production. On those facts, the clearance was treated as clearance of the imported goods as such, and the differential customs duty demand was sustained. The rejection of the testing-and-calibration defence, being contrary to contemporaneous records, also supported the finding of lack of bona fides, so the penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364234