<?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>2004 (3) TMI 696 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114451</link>
    <description>Foreign currency found in an appellant&#039;s possession was held liable to confiscation where the appellant failed to prove that it had been lawfully brought into India and was being taken back on departure. The surrounding circumstances, including the presence of currencies other than Saudi Riyals and the unrebutted explanation recorded in the statement, supported an inference of attempted unauthorised export. A later retraction was treated as not bona fide and did not displace the contemporaneous statement and evidence. The reduced penalty was also maintained because no mitigating ground justified further interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 17:30:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 696 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114451</link>
      <description>Foreign currency found in an appellant&#039;s possession was held liable to confiscation where the appellant failed to prove that it had been lawfully brought into India and was being taken back on departure. The surrounding circumstances, including the presence of currencies other than Saudi Riyals and the unrebutted explanation recorded in the statement, supported an inference of attempted unauthorised export. A later retraction was treated as not bona fide and did not displace the contemporaneous statement and evidence. The reduced penalty was also maintained because no mitigating ground justified further interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>