<?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 715 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106337</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants as there was insufficient evidence to prove their knowledge or reasonable belief regarding the diversion of goods imported under the DEEC Scheme. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing intent and awareness in customs violation cases and highlighted the need for clear evidence to support penalty imposition under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:18:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 715 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106337</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants as there was insufficient evidence to prove their knowledge or reasonable belief regarding the diversion of goods imported under the DEEC Scheme. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing intent and awareness in customs violation cases and highlighted the need for clear evidence to support penalty imposition under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>