<?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>2024 (3) TMI 1057 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451276</link>
    <description>Consignments declared as mobile parts were found to contain iPhone panels and related parts in quantities inconsistent with the courier bills of entry, and the declared description and value were unsupported by the evidence. The record also showed that consignments for different importers and locations were delivered to the same recipient, while authorization letters and proof of delivery appeared manipulated or unreliable. On the later investigation materials, the appellant failed to verify the importers, failed to exercise due diligence, and withheld material information from customs. Contravention of Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 was established, and revocation of courier registration, forfeiture of the security deposit, and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:24:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1057 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451276</link>
      <description>Consignments declared as mobile parts were found to contain iPhone panels and related parts in quantities inconsistent with the courier bills of entry, and the declared description and value were unsupported by the evidence. The record also showed that consignments for different importers and locations were delivered to the same recipient, while authorization letters and proof of delivery appeared manipulated or unreliable. On the later investigation materials, the appellant failed to verify the importers, failed to exercise due diligence, and withheld material information from customs. Contravention of Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 was established, and revocation of courier registration, forfeiture of the security deposit, and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>