<?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 (4) TMI 778 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106274</link>
    <description>Denial of cross-examination was treated as a breach of natural justice in a customs penalty matter. Penalty under customs confiscation provisions could not rest on past involvement in other cases or COFEPOSA detention alone; liability had to be proved by specific evidence that the person knowingly handled or dealt with goods liable to confiscation in the incident under consideration. As that direct involvement was not established, the penalty was held unsustainable and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:11:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 778 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106274</link>
      <description>Denial of cross-examination was treated as a breach of natural justice in a customs penalty matter. Penalty under customs confiscation provisions could not rest on past involvement in other cases or COFEPOSA detention alone; liability had to be proved by specific evidence that the person knowingly handled or dealt with goods liable to confiscation in the incident under consideration. As that direct involvement was not established, the penalty was held unsustainable and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>