<?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>2005 (11) TMI 317 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116856</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, affirming the duty liability of the appellants for non-compliance with post-importation conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The judgment emphasized the obligation to pay demanded duty as per Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, and upheld the duty payment requirement even in cases of pilfered or lost goods. The Commissioner&#039;s determination of the redemption fine and penalty was also upheld without further reduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:56:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 317 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116856</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, affirming the duty liability of the appellants for non-compliance with post-importation conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The judgment emphasized the obligation to pay demanded duty as per Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, and upheld the duty payment requirement even in cases of pilfered or lost goods. The Commissioner&#039;s determination of the redemption fine and penalty was also upheld without further reduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>