<?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>Restricted second-hand electronics need DGFT authorisation; confiscation survived only on that ground, with other objections rejected.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101085</link>
    <description>Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Restricted second-hand electronics need DGFT authorisation; confiscation survived only on that ground, with other objections rejected.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101085</link>
      <description>Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>