<?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 (4) TMI 510 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116977</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s penalty for alleged involvement in smuggling sandalwood was set aside as evidence indicated lack of awareness of the prohibited goods in the export consignment during the Shipping Bill filing. Failure to disclose sandalwood did not meet criteria for penalty under Customs Act Section 114. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner of Customs was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:23:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 510 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116977</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s penalty for alleged involvement in smuggling sandalwood was set aside as evidence indicated lack of awareness of the prohibited goods in the export consignment during the Shipping Bill filing. Failure to disclose sandalwood did not meet criteria for penalty under Customs Act Section 114. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner of Customs was overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>