<?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>2001 (6) TMI 79 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50511</link>
    <description>Imported IV cannulas and 3-way stopcocks/connectors were treated as falling within the exempted descriptions under Notification No. 23/98-Cus., with the exemption entries read pari materia with the earlier notification and supported by technical literature over unsupported or inconsistent departmental opinions. The declared price was accepted as contractually fixed for the relevant quantities and period, so no basis remained for enhancement of value or demand of differential duty. Once the duty demand failed, confiscation and penalties were also unsustainable. The matter turned on product description, evidentiary support for classification, and the absence of material justifying valuation uplift.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 79 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50511</link>
      <description>Imported IV cannulas and 3-way stopcocks/connectors were treated as falling within the exempted descriptions under Notification No. 23/98-Cus., with the exemption entries read pari materia with the earlier notification and supported by technical literature over unsupported or inconsistent departmental opinions. The declared price was accepted as contractually fixed for the relevant quantities and period, so no basis remained for enhancement of value or demand of differential duty. Once the duty demand failed, confiscation and penalties were also unsustainable. The matter turned on product description, evidentiary support for classification, and the absence of material justifying valuation uplift.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>