<?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>2009 (5) TMI 185 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75085</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled in favor of the exporters in a case involving the confiscation of art silk sarees under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, fine, and confiscation, rejecting the charge of over-invoicing and allowing the DEPB benefit at a rate of 9% FOB. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the alleged discrepancies in the declared description and value of the goods, ultimately concluding that there was no contravention of the relevant provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 185 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75085</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled in favor of the exporters in a case involving the confiscation of art silk sarees under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, fine, and confiscation, rejecting the charge of over-invoicing and allowing the DEPB benefit at a rate of 9% FOB. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the alleged discrepancies in the declared description and value of the goods, ultimately concluding that there was no contravention of the relevant provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>