<?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>1985 (1) TMI 177 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72458</link>
    <description>Customs adjudication proceeds independently of criminal prosecution, so discharge or acquittal in the criminal case does not bar confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act where the adjudicating authority has sufficient material on its own assessment. On the evidence, statements recorded during investigation and surrounding circumstances were treated as adequate to sustain personal penalties against the first two appellants for knowing involvement in smuggled baggage and disposal of goods. The third appellant, however, was not linked by direct or sufficient evidence to the alleged unauthorised import or abetment, so the penalty against him was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 16:50:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 177 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72458</link>
      <description>Customs adjudication proceeds independently of criminal prosecution, so discharge or acquittal in the criminal case does not bar confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act where the adjudicating authority has sufficient material on its own assessment. On the evidence, statements recorded during investigation and surrounding circumstances were treated as adequate to sustain personal penalties against the first two appellants for knowing involvement in smuggled baggage and disposal of goods. The third appellant, however, was not linked by direct or sufficient evidence to the alleged unauthorised import or abetment, so the penalty against him was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>