<?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>2008 (7) TMI 624 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123597</link>
    <description>The Customs House Agent (CHA) was penalized for alleged post import violations, but the impugned orders lacked concrete evidence linking the CHA to the violations. Discrepancies between show cause notices and impugned orders were noted, contravening legal precedents. The Tribunal found the penalties imposed on the CHA to be unjustified due to insufficient evidence, setting them aside in all four appeals and granting the CHA the benefit of doubt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:39:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 624 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123597</link>
      <description>The Customs House Agent (CHA) was penalized for alleged post import violations, but the impugned orders lacked concrete evidence linking the CHA to the violations. Discrepancies between show cause notices and impugned orders were noted, contravening legal precedents. The Tribunal found the penalties imposed on the CHA to be unjustified due to insufficient evidence, setting them aside in all four appeals and granting the CHA the benefit of doubt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>