<?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 (12) TMI 163 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34030</link>
    <description>Section 22 relief for damaged imported goods applies only where the importer shows, to the satisfaction of the proper officer, that damage or deterioration existed at the relevant stage before clearance and is duly intimated. Although the goods were damaged before warehousing, no intimation was given before the warehousing period expired. On expiry of the permitted period without removal, the goods were treated as improperly removed from the warehouse, so duty was chargeable on the date of deemed removal. The cited precedent was distinguished because it did not involve warehoused goods or non-compliance with the statutory timeline. The claim for reassessment on salvage value was rejected and the duty demand sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 163 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34030</link>
      <description>Section 22 relief for damaged imported goods applies only where the importer shows, to the satisfaction of the proper officer, that damage or deterioration existed at the relevant stage before clearance and is duly intimated. Although the goods were damaged before warehousing, no intimation was given before the warehousing period expired. On expiry of the permitted period without removal, the goods were treated as improperly removed from the warehouse, so duty was chargeable on the date of deemed removal. The cited precedent was distinguished because it did not involve warehoused goods or non-compliance with the statutory timeline. The claim for reassessment on salvage value was rejected and the duty demand sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>