<?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>2019 (8) TMI 497 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384308</link>
    <description>Assorted birthday candles were held classifiable as candles under Chapter 34 because their essential character and common trade understanding remained that of candles; the presence of spark-producing material in the wick did not make them fireworks or pyrotechnic articles, and the more specific description prevailed under the General Rules for Interpretation. The revocation of the Customs Broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were found unjustified because there was no material of intentional misconduct, fraud, corruption, or grave breach, and a drastic penalty could not rest on a mere lack of due diligence. The licence revocation and forfeiture were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2020 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 497 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384308</link>
      <description>Assorted birthday candles were held classifiable as candles under Chapter 34 because their essential character and common trade understanding remained that of candles; the presence of spark-producing material in the wick did not make them fireworks or pyrotechnic articles, and the more specific description prevailed under the General Rules for Interpretation. The revocation of the Customs Broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were found unjustified because there was no material of intentional misconduct, fraud, corruption, or grave breach, and a drastic penalty could not rest on a mere lack of due diligence. The licence revocation and forfeiture were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>