<?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>1972 (5) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45155</link>
    <description>For goods imported in anticipation of the vessel&#039;s arrival, the applicable customs duty was the rate in force on the date the bill of entry was deemed delivered under Section 37 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The Explanation treated a bill of entry delivered before arrival as delivered on the date the order for entry of the vessel inwards was made under Section 57. On the facts, the vessel had been allowed to break bulk before the enhanced rate took effect, and the contemporaneous endorsement supported that the requisite order had already been made. The revised higher duty was therefore not payable, and the original assessment at 10% was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (5) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45155</link>
      <description>For goods imported in anticipation of the vessel&#039;s arrival, the applicable customs duty was the rate in force on the date the bill of entry was deemed delivered under Section 37 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The Explanation treated a bill of entry delivered before arrival as delivered on the date the order for entry of the vessel inwards was made under Section 57. On the facts, the vessel had been allowed to break bulk before the enhanced rate took effect, and the contemporaneous endorsement supported that the requisite order had already been made. The revised higher duty was therefore not payable, and the original assessment at 10% was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>