<?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 (1) TMI 620 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109793</link>
    <description>Imported goods were treated as liable to confiscation because they failed the stipulated mutilation requirements under the customs and foreign trade framework. While affirming confiscability, CEGAT held that the redemption fine and penalty were excessive in light of comparable earlier orders and the value of the goods and offending portion, and therefore reduced the redemption fine to 20% of the confiscated goods&#039; value and the penalty to 10%, leaving one lower penalty unchanged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:32:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 620 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109793</link>
      <description>Imported goods were treated as liable to confiscation because they failed the stipulated mutilation requirements under the customs and foreign trade framework. While affirming confiscability, CEGAT held that the redemption fine and penalty were excessive in light of comparable earlier orders and the value of the goods and offending portion, and therefore reduced the redemption fine to 20% of the confiscated goods&#039; value and the penalty to 10%, leaving one lower penalty unchanged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>