<?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 (11) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82179</link>
    <description>The penalties imposed on the appellants for their involvement in the illegal importation and regularization of a Mercedes Benz car were mostly upheld, with adjustments made to the amounts based on the car&#039;s actual value. The confiscation of the car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was affirmed. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice in the adjudication process by a successor officer without a fresh hearing. The denial of cross-examination of a co-noticee was deemed acceptable, as corroborative evidence existed. The majority decision set aside the penalty on one appellant due to lack of evidence of knowledge of smuggling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:06:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82179</link>
      <description>The penalties imposed on the appellants for their involvement in the illegal importation and regularization of a Mercedes Benz car were mostly upheld, with adjustments made to the amounts based on the car&#039;s actual value. The confiscation of the car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was affirmed. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice in the adjudication process by a successor officer without a fresh hearing. The denial of cross-examination of a co-noticee was deemed acceptable, as corroborative evidence existed. The majority decision set aside the penalty on one appellant due to lack of evidence of knowledge of smuggling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>