<?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>2002 (5) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102452</link>
    <description>Goods remaining in a customs warehouse and under customs control were treated as not attracting the pre-deposit requirement under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, because section 62(2) restricted entry into or removal of warehoused goods without permission of the proper officer. On that basis, the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance was set aside and the appeals were restored to their original numbers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:40:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102452</link>
      <description>Goods remaining in a customs warehouse and under customs control were treated as not attracting the pre-deposit requirement under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, because section 62(2) restricted entry into or removal of warehoused goods without permission of the proper officer. On that basis, the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance was set aside and the appeals were restored to their original numbers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>