<?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>2000 (9) TMI 94 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48853</link>
    <description>Quartz analog watches with attached gold bracelets were treated as an integrated export product, and the Department&#039;s attempt to determine present market value by separating the components was found unreliable and unsustainable. Alleged over-valuation in the shipping bill was not treated as a valid misdeclaration where the goods were neither shown to be prohibited nor dutiable, so the basis for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act and the foreign exchange provisions failed. Refusal of provisional export was also held unwarranted, and the penalty on the Customs House Agent lacked support because no sustainable contravention was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:30:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 94 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48853</link>
      <description>Quartz analog watches with attached gold bracelets were treated as an integrated export product, and the Department&#039;s attempt to determine present market value by separating the components was found unreliable and unsustainable. Alleged over-valuation in the shipping bill was not treated as a valid misdeclaration where the goods were neither shown to be prohibited nor dutiable, so the basis for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act and the foreign exchange provisions failed. Refusal of provisional export was also held unwarranted, and the penalty on the Customs House Agent lacked support because no sustainable contravention was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>