<?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>1982 (8) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45112</link>
    <description>The court upheld the constitutionality of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill and Act, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s arguments. It determined that the duty payable was 230% ad valorem based on the date of bill presentation. Despite doubts about the petitioner&#039;s identity, the court presumed importation for the current issue. Valuation of goods was provisionally set at Rs. 15,000 per M.T. Confiscation was not enforced due to contested valuation. The court dismissed the writ petition against the Income Tax Department&#039;s order but required safeguards for potential tax liabilities. Pending the decision, the petitioner was allowed to clear goods under specified conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:43:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (8) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45112</link>
      <description>The court upheld the constitutionality of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill and Act, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s arguments. It determined that the duty payable was 230% ad valorem based on the date of bill presentation. Despite doubts about the petitioner&#039;s identity, the court presumed importation for the current issue. Valuation of goods was provisionally set at Rs. 15,000 per M.T. Confiscation was not enforced due to contested valuation. The court dismissed the writ petition against the Income Tax Department&#039;s order but required safeguards for potential tax liabilities. Pending the decision, the petitioner was allowed to clear goods under specified conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>