<?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 (7) TMI 106 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51918</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original confiscating marble blocks imported by the appellant under Sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the weight discrepancy to be minimal and irrelevant for customs purposes, especially considering the appellant&#039;s obligation as an EOU to re-export the goods. The proceedings were deemed unwarranted due to misapplication of criteria, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:07:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 106 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51918</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original confiscating marble blocks imported by the appellant under Sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the weight discrepancy to be minimal and irrelevant for customs purposes, especially considering the appellant&#039;s obligation as an EOU to re-export the goods. The proceedings were deemed unwarranted due to misapplication of criteria, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>