<?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>1991 (8) TMI 115 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49112</link>
    <description>Drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 is available only where the statutory conditions for re-export are satisfied, including proof of identity of the exported goods with the imported goods and satisfaction as to market value. Goods exported for repair under a white shipping bill did not meet those requirements because the required identification was not established to the satisfaction of the proper officer and the market value condition was not fulfilled. As the goods were found irreparable, their value could not support the claimed drawback. The drawback claim was therefore inadmissible, and rejection of the revision application was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:32:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 115 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49112</link>
      <description>Drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 is available only where the statutory conditions for re-export are satisfied, including proof of identity of the exported goods with the imported goods and satisfaction as to market value. Goods exported for repair under a white shipping bill did not meet those requirements because the required identification was not established to the satisfaction of the proper officer and the market value condition was not fulfilled. As the goods were found irreparable, their value could not support the claimed drawback. The drawback claim was therefore inadmissible, and rejection of the revision application was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>