<?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>2004 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53515</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and confiscation of goods, imposing a reduced penalty on the appellant for misdeclaring the MRP of imported goods. The appeal was partly allowed with reduced penalties. The Tribunal emphasized that duty liability is determined by the actual selling price, not the declared MRP, underscoring the importance of accurate MRP declarations to avoid penalties and confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53515</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and confiscation of goods, imposing a reduced penalty on the appellant for misdeclaring the MRP of imported goods. The appeal was partly allowed with reduced penalties. The Tribunal emphasized that duty liability is determined by the actual selling price, not the declared MRP, underscoring the importance of accurate MRP declarations to avoid penalties and confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>