<?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 (9) TMI 698 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107218</link>
    <description>Indian currency notes brought from Nepal in breach of an undisputed import prohibition were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The prohibition issued under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act attracted confiscation, and ignorance of the restriction did not excuse non-compliance. Redemption of confiscated goods was unavailable because the owner had not sought it before the appellate authority or subsequently; the statutory redemption right was capable of waiver through failure to assert it in time. The personal penalty did not survive because its setting aside was not specifically challenged. The appeal therefore succeeded only on confiscation and denial of redemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:10:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 698 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107218</link>
      <description>Indian currency notes brought from Nepal in breach of an undisputed import prohibition were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The prohibition issued under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act attracted confiscation, and ignorance of the restriction did not excuse non-compliance. Redemption of confiscated goods was unavailable because the owner had not sought it before the appellate authority or subsequently; the statutory redemption right was capable of waiver through failure to assert it in time. The personal penalty did not survive because its setting aside was not specifically challenged. The appeal therefore succeeded only on confiscation and denial of redemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>