<?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>2003 (3) TMI 386 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107302</link>
    <description>The tribunal majority classified imported lighting equipment under CTH 9405.40, requiring an import license. They reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2.5 lakhs and set aside the penalty, partially allowing the appeal. A dissenting member argued for classification under CTH 9010.90, proposing to set aside all penalties. Ultimately, the majority decision prevailed, reducing the fine and eliminating the penalty while upholding the confiscation under CTH 9405.40.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:15:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 386 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107302</link>
      <description>The tribunal majority classified imported lighting equipment under CTH 9405.40, requiring an import license. They reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2.5 lakhs and set aside the penalty, partially allowing the appeal. A dissenting member argued for classification under CTH 9010.90, proposing to set aside all penalties. Ultimately, the majority decision prevailed, reducing the fine and eliminating the penalty while upholding the confiscation under CTH 9405.40.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>