<?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 (11) TMI 370 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110086</link>
    <description>Garlic imported in 1996 was held not to be freely importable under the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 1989, because the provisions relied on covered seeds, fruits for consumption, or seeds and plants for sowing or planting, and no permit had been issued for garlic. The goods therefore fell within the import restriction regime and were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Prior clearance of a similar consignment was treated as relevant to the importer&#039;s belief and justified deletion of penalty, but it did not affect the statutory liability of the goods to confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:43:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 370 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110086</link>
      <description>Garlic imported in 1996 was held not to be freely importable under the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 1989, because the provisions relied on covered seeds, fruits for consumption, or seeds and plants for sowing or planting, and no permit had been issued for garlic. The goods therefore fell within the import restriction regime and were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Prior clearance of a similar consignment was treated as relevant to the importer&#039;s belief and justified deletion of penalty, but it did not affect the statutory liability of the goods to confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>