<?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>2007 (1) TMI 375 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120922</link>
    <description>Foreign currency brought into India without declaration was treated as liable to confiscation because the import regulations required declaration to Customs and the amount exceeded the permitted ceiling. Gold bars were also held liable to confiscation where they were attempted to be cleared without declaration, no lawful acquisition was shown, and the conduct indicated participation in smuggling. On redemption, section 125 was applied to hold that absolute confiscation was not compulsory on the facts found, so denial of any redemption option was unsustainable. The penalty was likewise found excessive and required reconsideration after hearing the appellant, with the matter remitted for determination of redemption fine and reasonable penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:08:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 375 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120922</link>
      <description>Foreign currency brought into India without declaration was treated as liable to confiscation because the import regulations required declaration to Customs and the amount exceeded the permitted ceiling. Gold bars were also held liable to confiscation where they were attempted to be cleared without declaration, no lawful acquisition was shown, and the conduct indicated participation in smuggling. On redemption, section 125 was applied to hold that absolute confiscation was not compulsory on the facts found, so denial of any redemption option was unsustainable. The penalty was likewise found excessive and required reconsideration after hearing the appellant, with the matter remitted for determination of redemption fine and reasonable penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>