<?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>Imported goods marked only with the importer&#039;s name, without a country-of-origin indication on the goods themselves, were treated as non-compliant with Notification No. 1/64-Cus.; invoice and Bill of Entry disclosures were insufficient because the marking requirement had to be satisfied on the goods themselves. The article also notes that the absence-of-show-cause objection was rejected where a personal hearing had been granted and no objection was raised at that stage. Confiscation and penalty were upheld in principle, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced after the Tribunal considered the value of the goods and found the original quantum excessive.</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>Imported goods marked only with the importer&#039;s name, without a country-of-origin indication on the goods themselves, were treated as non-compliant with Notification No. 1/64-Cus.; invoice and Bill of Entry disclosures were insufficient because the marking requirement had to be satisfied on the goods themselves. The article also notes that the absence-of-show-cause objection was rejected where a personal hearing had been granted and no objection was raised at that stage. Confiscation and penalty were upheld in principle, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced after the Tribunal considered the value of the goods and found the original quantum excessive.</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>