<?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>2022 (7) TMI 247 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424692</link>
    <description>A BIS certificate used for import of CRGO electrical steel sheets/coils was found to be fake because it bore an outdated standard mark, lacked competent signatures, was traced to editable soft-format preparation, and was denied by the foreign supplier. The record did not support the claim that the certificate was genuine, so the certificate was rightly treated as forged. Confiscation and penalty were therefore upheld on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2022 09:04:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 247 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424692</link>
      <description>A BIS certificate used for import of CRGO electrical steel sheets/coils was found to be fake because it bore an outdated standard mark, lacked competent signatures, was traced to editable soft-format preparation, and was denied by the foreign supplier. The record did not support the claim that the certificate was genuine, so the certificate was rightly treated as forged. Confiscation and penalty were therefore upheld on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>