<?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>1997 (1) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86363</link>
    <description>Where confiscated goods are allowed to be re-exported under the Customs Act, 1962, redemption fine is not sustainable in the absence of authority under section 125. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that the adjudicating authority cannot impose redemption fine in a re-export situation, and held that the fine had to be set aside. The confiscation and re-export arrangement otherwise remained undisturbed, so only the monetary penalty component was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:53:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86363</link>
      <description>Where confiscated goods are allowed to be re-exported under the Customs Act, 1962, redemption fine is not sustainable in the absence of authority under section 125. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that the adjudicating authority cannot impose redemption fine in a re-export situation, and held that the fine had to be set aside. The confiscation and re-export arrangement otherwise remained undisturbed, so only the monetary penalty component was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>