<?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 86 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50539</link>
    <description>Country-of-origin marking on imported goods was mandatory where the goods bore an Indian importer&#039;s name or trade mark. Notification No. 1/64-Cus. required the goods themselves to display a definite indication that they were made abroad, including the country of origin in lettering as large and conspicuous as the trade mark; statements in the invoice and Bill of Entry did not satisfy that condition. The absence of a show-cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings where a personal hearing was provided without objection. Confiscation and penalty were therefore sustained, but redemption fine and penalty were reduced as excessive relative to the goods&#039; value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:45:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 86 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50539</link>
      <description>Country-of-origin marking on imported goods was mandatory where the goods bore an Indian importer&#039;s name or trade mark. Notification No. 1/64-Cus. required the goods themselves to display a definite indication that they were made abroad, including the country of origin in lettering as large and conspicuous as the trade mark; statements in the invoice and Bill of Entry did not satisfy that condition. The absence of a show-cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings where a personal hearing was provided without objection. Confiscation and penalty were therefore sustained, but redemption fine and penalty were reduced as excessive relative to the goods&#039; value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>