<?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 (12) TMI 325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446641</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld customs authorities&#039; conditions for provisional release of seized export goods found to be mis-declared. The appellant falsely described goods as &quot;Whey Flour Powder&quot; to claim 10% FOB value benefit under MEIS, when they were actually &quot;Maida&quot; (not covered under the scheme). The appellant also over-valued the goods. The tribunal ruled that provisional release is not an absolute right and authorities can impose reasonable conditions including bond equivalent to goods&#039; value plus appropriate security for redemption fine and penalty. The appellant&#039;s reliance on Circular 17/2009 was misplaced as it applied to different export promotion schemes. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446641</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld customs authorities&#039; conditions for provisional release of seized export goods found to be mis-declared. The appellant falsely described goods as &quot;Whey Flour Powder&quot; to claim 10% FOB value benefit under MEIS, when they were actually &quot;Maida&quot; (not covered under the scheme). The appellant also over-valued the goods. The tribunal ruled that provisional release is not an absolute right and authorities can impose reasonable conditions including bond equivalent to goods&#039; value plus appropriate security for redemption fine and penalty. The appellant&#039;s reliance on Circular 17/2009 was misplaced as it applied to different export promotion schemes. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>