<?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 (12) TMI 528 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109211</link>
    <description>A prima facie view was taken that sale of diamonds to a person of foreign origin was not, by itself, an offence, and there was no material showing that the appellant knew the diamonds would be passed to someone intending to smuggle them out of India. On that basis, a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit was found, and the penalty pre-deposit was dispensed with while recovery remained stayed pending disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:58:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 528 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109211</link>
      <description>A prima facie view was taken that sale of diamonds to a person of foreign origin was not, by itself, an offence, and there was no material showing that the appellant knew the diamonds would be passed to someone intending to smuggle them out of India. On that basis, a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit was found, and the penalty pre-deposit was dispensed with while recovery remained stayed pending disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>