<?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>2006 (3) TMI 529 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118375</link>
    <description>Metal scrap imports were subject to amended EXIM Policy restrictions requiring entry only through designated ports and prescribed certificates for war-related materials; a general permission could not override those specific conditions. The document states that import through Land Customs Station, Amritsar was not permissible and that confiscation of the consignment was sustained. It also notes that where the breach was treated as an error rather than deliberate evasion, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could be moderated, resulting in reduction of the penalty while the confiscation and redemption fine remained upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 529 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118375</link>
      <description>Metal scrap imports were subject to amended EXIM Policy restrictions requiring entry only through designated ports and prescribed certificates for war-related materials; a general permission could not override those specific conditions. The document states that import through Land Customs Station, Amritsar was not permissible and that confiscation of the consignment was sustained. It also notes that where the breach was treated as an error rather than deliberate evasion, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could be moderated, resulting in reduction of the penalty while the confiscation and redemption fine remained upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>