<?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 (5) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94622</link>
    <description>Unmanifested gold carried on an aircraft was treated as liable to confiscation where it was not properly included in the import manifest and no prior Customs permission was obtained to unload or amend the manifest. The Customs Act provisions on delivery of the import manifest, prohibition on unloading goods not specified in the manifest, and confiscation of goods omitted from the manifest were applied together with the Aircraft Import Manifest Regulations. A claim that the consignment had been intended for another destination and mistakenly loaded was rejected on the surrounding documentary and handling evidence. Penalties were therefore justified, though the airline&#039;s penalty was reduced while the cargo officer&#039;s nominal penalty was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:00:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94622</link>
      <description>Unmanifested gold carried on an aircraft was treated as liable to confiscation where it was not properly included in the import manifest and no prior Customs permission was obtained to unload or amend the manifest. The Customs Act provisions on delivery of the import manifest, prohibition on unloading goods not specified in the manifest, and confiscation of goods omitted from the manifest were applied together with the Aircraft Import Manifest Regulations. A claim that the consignment had been intended for another destination and mistakenly loaded was rejected on the surrounding documentary and handling evidence. Penalties were therefore justified, though the airline&#039;s penalty was reduced while the cargo officer&#039;s nominal penalty was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>