<?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 (4) TMI 377 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751196</link>
    <description>Import of new vehicles was examined against the Chapter 87 licensing condition requiring a valid type approval or compliance certificate under Rule 126 at the time of import and proof of conformity of production under Rule 126A within six months. Although the requirement was treated as mandatory, the vehicles were later registered by the competent transport authority and were issued certificates of fitness and tourist permits recording compliance with the motor vehicle law and rules. On that basis, the policy objective was treated as satisfied, and the note states that the earlier procedural deficiency did not justify confiscation or penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:43:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 377 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751196</link>
      <description>Import of new vehicles was examined against the Chapter 87 licensing condition requiring a valid type approval or compliance certificate under Rule 126 at the time of import and proof of conformity of production under Rule 126A within six months. Although the requirement was treated as mandatory, the vehicles were later registered by the competent transport authority and were issued certificates of fitness and tourist permits recording compliance with the motor vehicle law and rules. On that basis, the policy objective was treated as satisfied, and the note states that the earlier procedural deficiency did not justify confiscation or penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>