<?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>1999 (10) TMI 338 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93133</link>
    <description>Gold bullion imported under licence was distinguishable from gold jewellery treated as prohibited consumer goods, and the record did not establish a deliberate attempt to smuggle the jewellery or evade import policy. In that setting, re-export of the confiscated jewellery was permitted on payment of fine, even though confiscation itself was maintained. The absence of evidence of deliberate evasion also meant that the personal penalty on the importer was not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:36:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 338 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93133</link>
      <description>Gold bullion imported under licence was distinguishable from gold jewellery treated as prohibited consumer goods, and the record did not establish a deliberate attempt to smuggle the jewellery or evade import policy. In that setting, re-export of the confiscated jewellery was permitted on payment of fine, even though confiscation itself was maintained. The absence of evidence of deliberate evasion also meant that the personal penalty on the importer was not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>