<?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 (8) TMI 377 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118626</link>
    <description>Import restrictions on gold were treated as falling within the expression &quot;any prohibition&quot; under customs law, so the goods were liable to confiscation and absolute confiscation was upheld. The Tribunal also held that miscellaneous applications seeking rectification could not be used to reopen the earlier final order, so the rectification proceedings were not maintainable and were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:43:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 377 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118626</link>
      <description>Import restrictions on gold were treated as falling within the expression &quot;any prohibition&quot; under customs law, so the goods were liable to confiscation and absolute confiscation was upheld. The Tribunal also held that miscellaneous applications seeking rectification could not be used to reopen the earlier final order, so the rectification proceedings were not maintainable and were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>