<?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 (11) TMI 503 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107113</link>
    <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, reducing it from Rs. 1.60 lakh to Rs. 25,000. The decision affirmed the penalization of the appellants as agents of the vessel&#039;s master under both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112 for non-filing of manifest, despite the absence of mens rea. The appeal was rejected, with the pre-deposit amount adjusted accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:02:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 503 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107113</link>
      <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, reducing it from Rs. 1.60 lakh to Rs. 25,000. The decision affirmed the penalization of the appellants as agents of the vessel&#039;s master under both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112 for non-filing of manifest, despite the absence of mens rea. The appeal was rejected, with the pre-deposit amount adjusted accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>