<?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 396 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107312</link>
    <description>Accepted tender of customs duty by cheque was treated as payment on the date of presentation, because the cheque was not dishonoured and later realisation did not alter its legal effect. On that basis, the relevant rate of duty for warehoused goods was the pre-budget rate applicable on removal from the warehouse, and the post-budget rate could not be invoked. The record did not establish wilful misdeclaration, suppression, or intent to evade duty. As clearance had been granted by the proper officer, confiscation under Section 111(j) was unsustainable, and the importer&#039;s penalty, as well as penalties on company and departmental officers, could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:22:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 396 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107312</link>
      <description>Accepted tender of customs duty by cheque was treated as payment on the date of presentation, because the cheque was not dishonoured and later realisation did not alter its legal effect. On that basis, the relevant rate of duty for warehoused goods was the pre-budget rate applicable on removal from the warehouse, and the post-budget rate could not be invoked. The record did not establish wilful misdeclaration, suppression, or intent to evade duty. As clearance had been granted by the proper officer, confiscation under Section 111(j) was unsustainable, and the importer&#039;s penalty, as well as penalties on company and departmental officers, could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>