<?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>2005 (12) TMI 168 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54821</link>
    <description>Imported industrial sewing machines cleared under a valid EPCG licence and intended for use in the importer&#039;s factory were held not liable to confiscation or penalty for absence of country-of-origin marking. The tribunal reasoned that the marking requirement under Section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the relevant notification applied only to goods within the notified category, and the exemption for imports not meant for trade use was relevant on the facts. The omission was treated as, at most, a technical irregularity, so the confiscation and penalty were unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:40:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 168 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54821</link>
      <description>Imported industrial sewing machines cleared under a valid EPCG licence and intended for use in the importer&#039;s factory were held not liable to confiscation or penalty for absence of country-of-origin marking. The tribunal reasoned that the marking requirement under Section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the relevant notification applied only to goods within the notified category, and the exemption for imports not meant for trade use was relevant on the facts. The omission was treated as, at most, a technical irregularity, so the confiscation and penalty were unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>