<?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>2008 (8) TMI 264 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33464</link>
    <description>A customs import condition requiring a Type Approval Certificate/COP from an accredited agency was held unsustainable where the notified country was not covered and a manufacturer&#039;s COP was already on record, making compliance impossible; that ground of confiscation and penalty was set aside. By contrast, the separate licensing condition that the vehicle be imported from the country of manufacture was breached because the bill of lading showed shipment from Thailand and no reliable proof of U.S. import was produced; confiscation was therefore upheld on that ground, with only the redemption fine and penalty reduced. The document states the challenge succeeded only in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 264 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33464</link>
      <description>A customs import condition requiring a Type Approval Certificate/COP from an accredited agency was held unsustainable where the notified country was not covered and a manufacturer&#039;s COP was already on record, making compliance impossible; that ground of confiscation and penalty was set aside. By contrast, the separate licensing condition that the vehicle be imported from the country of manufacture was breached because the bill of lading showed shipment from Thailand and no reliable proof of U.S. import was produced; confiscation was therefore upheld on that ground, with only the redemption fine and penalty reduced. The document states the challenge succeeded only in part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>