<?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>1992 (6) TMI 103 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81886</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order of goods brought as baggage by the appellant under the Customs Act. It found that the appellant had declared the goods under Section 77 and intended to do so by choosing the Red Channel, with no evidence of smuggling. The Tribunal emphasized the import of goods for personal use and household effects, directing the release of goods upon payment of assessed duty, as the appellant failed to provide necessary re-export details.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:28:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (6) TMI 103 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81886</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order of goods brought as baggage by the appellant under the Customs Act. It found that the appellant had declared the goods under Section 77 and intended to do so by choosing the Red Channel, with no evidence of smuggling. The Tribunal emphasized the import of goods for personal use and household effects, directing the release of goods upon payment of assessed duty, as the appellant failed to provide necessary re-export details.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>