<?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>2023 (3) TMI 842 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435456</link>
    <description>Warehoused denatured ethyl alcohol intended for re-export could not be treated as misdeclared merely because it did not satisfy the IS 4117 denaturation standard, since that standard applied to clearance for use in India and not to re-export cargo. The department&#039;s reliance on import and export restrictions was therefore inapplicable on the facts, and the confiscation basis failed. Once misdeclaration was not established, the connected redemption fine and penalties under the Customs Act could not survive. The record also indicated that the bill of lading date matched the Import General Manifest data, and no false particulars were proved; non-production of the manufacturer&#039;s invoice alone was insufficient to justify penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 08:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 842 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435456</link>
      <description>Warehoused denatured ethyl alcohol intended for re-export could not be treated as misdeclared merely because it did not satisfy the IS 4117 denaturation standard, since that standard applied to clearance for use in India and not to re-export cargo. The department&#039;s reliance on import and export restrictions was therefore inapplicable on the facts, and the confiscation basis failed. Once misdeclaration was not established, the connected redemption fine and penalties under the Customs Act could not survive. The record also indicated that the bill of lading date matched the Import General Manifest data, and no false particulars were proved; non-production of the manufacturer&#039;s invoice alone was insufficient to justify penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>