<?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>1991 (5) TMI 134 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81316</link>
    <description>Old and used cameras and allied studio articles kept for professional use were treated as outside the stricter confiscatory regime, so confiscation and penalty on those items were set aside. The penalty against the proprietary firm also failed because the record did not support the finding that it was owned by another person. By contrast, photographic films and other foreign goods found in commercial quantities without supporting documents were treated as smuggled goods; confiscation was sustained with redemption allowed on fine. The penalty on the appellant directly involved in the illicit trade was confirmed, while the other individual received the benefit of doubt and his penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:28:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 134 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81316</link>
      <description>Old and used cameras and allied studio articles kept for professional use were treated as outside the stricter confiscatory regime, so confiscation and penalty on those items were set aside. The penalty against the proprietary firm also failed because the record did not support the finding that it was owned by another person. By contrast, photographic films and other foreign goods found in commercial quantities without supporting documents were treated as smuggled goods; confiscation was sustained with redemption allowed on fine. The penalty on the appellant directly involved in the illicit trade was confirmed, while the other individual received the benefit of doubt and his penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>