<?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 (4) TMI 438 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99665</link>
    <description>The judgment upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority, rejecting the appeal to enhance the redemption fine and levy a penalty on confiscated goods. The court emphasized the exercise of judicial discretion, the absence of mandatory penalties in all confiscation cases, and the importance of considering the circumstances of each case before imposing fines or penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 438 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99665</link>
      <description>The judgment upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority, rejecting the appeal to enhance the redemption fine and levy a penalty on confiscated goods. The court emphasized the exercise of judicial discretion, the absence of mandatory penalties in all confiscation cases, and the importance of considering the circumstances of each case before imposing fines or penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>