<?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>2009 (6) TMI 702 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125441</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Customs House Agent (CHA) and its Managing Director were liable under the Customs Act, 1962 for overvaluation of goods by the exporter. It was established that penalties could be imposed on the firm and its partners collectively, with no separate penalty for partners. The Tribunal emphasized the responsibility of the CHA and its employees in cases of misconduct, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal rejected the applicants&#039; request for separate penalties, directing the firm to deposit the amount within 12 weeks, considering financial hardship insufficient for waiver. A compliance report was scheduled to ensure adherence to the Tribunal&#039;s directives.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:47:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 702 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125441</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Customs House Agent (CHA) and its Managing Director were liable under the Customs Act, 1962 for overvaluation of goods by the exporter. It was established that penalties could be imposed on the firm and its partners collectively, with no separate penalty for partners. The Tribunal emphasized the responsibility of the CHA and its employees in cases of misconduct, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal rejected the applicants&#039; request for separate penalties, directing the firm to deposit the amount within 12 weeks, considering financial hardship insufficient for waiver. A compliance report was scheduled to ensure adherence to the Tribunal&#039;s directives.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>