<?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>1995 (7) TMI 187 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84503</link>
    <description>Redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act is obligatory where imported goods are not totally prohibited; absolute confiscation cannot be sought as a substitute. The fact that duty payable was difficult to work out, or that the Collector (Appeals) directions were unsatisfactory in practice, did not justify a direction contrary to Section 125. On that basis, the request for absolute confiscation was held unsustainable and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:18:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 187 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84503</link>
      <description>Redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act is obligatory where imported goods are not totally prohibited; absolute confiscation cannot be sought as a substitute. The fact that duty payable was difficult to work out, or that the Collector (Appeals) directions were unsatisfactory in practice, did not justify a direction contrary to Section 125. On that basis, the request for absolute confiscation was held unsustainable and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>