<?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 (7) TMI 454 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107874</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained unless a contravention attracting Section 111 is first established. On the facts noted, no bill of entry had been filed, but there was also no established misdeclaration or other proved contravention, so the statutory basis for penalty was absent. The penalty was therefore set aside, while the question of importer status was left undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 454 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107874</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained unless a contravention attracting Section 111 is first established. On the facts noted, no bill of entry had been filed, but there was also no established misdeclaration or other proved contravention, so the statutory basis for penalty was absent. The penalty was therefore set aside, while the question of importer status was left undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>