<?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 (6) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102491</link>
    <description>Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act is sustainable only where the import is contrary to a prohibition imposed by law. On the stated facts, the import was found to comply with the relevant legal provisions and no contravention was proved, so confiscation could not be justified on mere suspicion or on apprehension about the importer&#039;s future conduct. The confiscation was therefore unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:12:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102491</link>
      <description>Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act is sustainable only where the import is contrary to a prohibition imposed by law. On the stated facts, the import was found to comply with the relevant legal provisions and no contravention was proved, so confiscation could not be justified on mere suspicion or on apprehension about the importer&#039;s future conduct. The confiscation was therefore unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>