<?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 (4) TMI 572 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99525</link>
    <description>Where imported machines were lawfully brought in, confiscation could not be sustained under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act on the basis of a later breach of exemption notification or import policy conditions. That clause applies only where the import itself is unlawful, while a post-import breach, if established, may attract the provision dealing with subsequent contravention. The confiscation order was therefore set aside because it proceeded under the wrong statutory clause.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:33:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 572 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99525</link>
      <description>Where imported machines were lawfully brought in, confiscation could not be sustained under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act on the basis of a later breach of exemption notification or import policy conditions. That clause applies only where the import itself is unlawful, while a post-import breach, if established, may attract the provision dealing with subsequent contravention. The confiscation order was therefore set aside because it proceeded under the wrong statutory clause.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>