<?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>2001 (2) TMI 453 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95923</link>
    <description>Foreign currency brought into India was not treated as liable to confiscation where the source of funds was accepted and the only lapse was non-declaration in the currency declaration form. On those facts, the confiscatory consequences were found excessive: the penalty was set aside and the redemption fine was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:57:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 453 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95923</link>
      <description>Foreign currency brought into India was not treated as liable to confiscation where the source of funds was accepted and the only lapse was non-declaration in the currency declaration form. On those facts, the confiscatory consequences were found excessive: the penalty was set aside and the redemption fine was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>