<?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 (9) TMI 453 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107961</link>
    <description>Liability for failure to file a full and correct manifest could not be imposed on a slot charterer or steamer agent where Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962 identified the master of the vessel as the person in charge of the conveyance. On that construction, the statutory responsibility for the manifest rested with the master, so penalties against the slot charterer and steamer agent were not sustainable and were set aside, with consequential relief granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:08:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 453 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107961</link>
      <description>Liability for failure to file a full and correct manifest could not be imposed on a slot charterer or steamer agent where Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962 identified the master of the vessel as the person in charge of the conveyance. On that construction, the statutory responsibility for the manifest rested with the master, so penalties against the slot charterer and steamer agent were not sustainable and were set aside, with consequential relief granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>