<?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 (1) TMI 672 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125821</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to confiscate the imported goods, impose a redemption fine, and penalties on involved parties under the Customs Act, 1962. The goods, including explosives disguised as scrap, were deemed prohibited, justifying the actions taken. Non-compliance with DGFT notices, especially regarding pre-shipment inspection, led to the confiscation. The appellants&#039; appeals were rejected, affirming the original order entirely.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:20:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 672 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125821</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to confiscate the imported goods, impose a redemption fine, and penalties on involved parties under the Customs Act, 1962. The goods, including explosives disguised as scrap, were deemed prohibited, justifying the actions taken. Non-compliance with DGFT notices, especially regarding pre-shipment inspection, led to the confiscation. The appellants&#039; appeals were rejected, affirming the original order entirely.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>