<?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 (10) TMI 83 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50045</link>
    <description>Dried garlic was classified under tariff heading 071290.04, with the Tribunal treating an earlier reference to 0701.90 as a typographical error. On that classification, the goods fell within the open general licence regime, so the basis for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act did not survive. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:42:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 83 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50045</link>
      <description>Dried garlic was classified under tariff heading 071290.04, with the Tribunal treating an earlier reference to 0701.90 as a typographical error. On that classification, the goods fell within the open general licence regime, so the basis for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act did not survive. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>