<?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 (8) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756330</link>
    <description>The HC quashed a customs order dated 21st April 2021 regarding import of used haemodialysis machines. Revenue alleged import of prohibited hazardous waste/e-waste under Basel Convention rules. The customs authority issued show cause notice but failed to make findings on hazardous waste allegations after petitioner&#039;s reply, which HC held meant acceptance of explanation. However, authority proceeded to reject declared assessable value, ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act with redemption option for re-export only, and imposed penalty under Section 112(a)(i). HC found this contradictory since confiscation was proposed for prohibited goods import, not value misdeclaration, and set aside the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2024 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756330</link>
      <description>The HC quashed a customs order dated 21st April 2021 regarding import of used haemodialysis machines. Revenue alleged import of prohibited hazardous waste/e-waste under Basel Convention rules. The customs authority issued show cause notice but failed to make findings on hazardous waste allegations after petitioner&#039;s reply, which HC held meant acceptance of explanation. However, authority proceeded to reject declared assessable value, ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act with redemption option for re-export only, and imposed penalty under Section 112(a)(i). HC found this contradictory since confiscation was proposed for prohibited goods import, not value misdeclaration, and set aside the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>