<?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 (10) TMI 458 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386974</link>
    <description>Blended woven fabrics of polyester and viscose were held correctly classifiable under drawback serial 551502A, because the evidence showed a polyester-viscose blend and not the higher synthetic staple fibre threshold needed for the claimed entry. Recovery of excess drawback under Rule 16 was upheld as having been initiated within a reasonable time, and interest on the excess drawback was also sustained once payment beyond entitlement was established. Penalty under the Customs Act was maintained because misdeclaration rendered the goods liable to confiscation. However, confiscation and redemption fine were set aside since the goods were no longer available for confiscation and had not been released under bond or security.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 458 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386974</link>
      <description>Blended woven fabrics of polyester and viscose were held correctly classifiable under drawback serial 551502A, because the evidence showed a polyester-viscose blend and not the higher synthetic staple fibre threshold needed for the claimed entry. Recovery of excess drawback under Rule 16 was upheld as having been initiated within a reasonable time, and interest on the excess drawback was also sustained once payment beyond entitlement was established. Penalty under the Customs Act was maintained because misdeclaration rendered the goods liable to confiscation. However, confiscation and redemption fine were set aside since the goods were no longer available for confiscation and had not been released under bond or security.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>