<?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 (4) TMI 135 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50561</link>
    <description>Where EPCG goods had arrived but duty had not been paid and formal clearance had not occurred, an amended licence covering the machines was held applicable because clearance for home consumption arises only after duty payment and permission to clear. On that basis, the importer was entitled to the licence benefit and the customs objections based on non-coverage by the original licence failed. Once the amended licence applied, confiscation under sections 111(d), 111(m) and 111(o), along with redemption fine, duty demand and penalty, could not be sustained because there was no false declaration and no breach of a conditional exemption. The goods were therefore allowed to be cleared under the EPCG scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:58:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 135 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50561</link>
      <description>Where EPCG goods had arrived but duty had not been paid and formal clearance had not occurred, an amended licence covering the machines was held applicable because clearance for home consumption arises only after duty payment and permission to clear. On that basis, the importer was entitled to the licence benefit and the customs objections based on non-coverage by the original licence failed. Once the amended licence applied, confiscation under sections 111(d), 111(m) and 111(o), along with redemption fine, duty demand and penalty, could not be sustained because there was no false declaration and no breach of a conditional exemption. The goods were therefore allowed to be cleared under the EPCG scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>