<?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>2003 (1) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51848</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the confiscation of an imported embroidery machine under the Customs Act. The decision was based on insufficient evidence and unreliable valuation methods used by customs authorities. The conflicting information regarding the machine&#039;s year of manufacture and the significant variance between the auction sale price and the initial valuation raised doubts about the accuracy of the confiscation order, leading to its reversal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:14:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51848</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the confiscation of an imported embroidery machine under the Customs Act. The decision was based on insufficient evidence and unreliable valuation methods used by customs authorities. The conflicting information regarding the machine&#039;s year of manufacture and the significant variance between the auction sale price and the initial valuation raised doubts about the accuracy of the confiscation order, leading to its reversal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>