<?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 537 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96077</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was held unsustainable because the record did not show that the appellants were concerned in the importation of the silver or knew, or had reason to believe, that it was liable to confiscation. Mere foreign markings on the silver were insufficient to prove knowledge that the goods were smuggled, especially where the import policy then permitted silver imports against transferable special import licences. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:11:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 537 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96077</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was held unsustainable because the record did not show that the appellants were concerned in the importation of the silver or knew, or had reason to believe, that it was liable to confiscation. Mere foreign markings on the silver were insufficient to prove knowledge that the goods were smuggled, especially where the import policy then permitted silver imports against transferable special import licences. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>