<?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>1997 (8) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44796</link>
    <description>Import duty exemption under Notification No. 280/76-Cus. was available only where the goods were in fact the produce or manufacture of Burma and were imported as such, with the Assistant Collector satisfied on that basis. Burma teak purchased through Singapore did not qualify merely because it was said to have originated from Burma, and certificates could not override the actual import source. The notification was read in its customs context as a limited concession tied to the origin and identity of the goods, so the claimed exemption depended on proof that the goods met the notification conditions in substance, not merely by description.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:00:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44796</link>
      <description>Import duty exemption under Notification No. 280/76-Cus. was available only where the goods were in fact the produce or manufacture of Burma and were imported as such, with the Assistant Collector satisfied on that basis. Burma teak purchased through Singapore did not qualify merely because it was said to have originated from Burma, and certificates could not override the actual import source. The notification was read in its customs context as a limited concession tied to the origin and identity of the goods, so the claimed exemption depended on proof that the goods met the notification conditions in substance, not merely by description.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>