<?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 (2) TMI 636 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126020</link>
    <description>Penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act were unsustainable where the only basis was transport of goods without bilti. The absence of bilti, by itself, did not establish that the driver or transporter knew the goods were of smuggled character, and the record contained no further material proving such awareness. The appellants&#039; exculpatory statements were also considered. The penalties were therefore set aside and the benefit of doubt was given to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:04:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 636 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126020</link>
      <description>Penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act were unsustainable where the only basis was transport of goods without bilti. The absence of bilti, by itself, did not establish that the driver or transporter knew the goods were of smuggled character, and the record contained no further material proving such awareness. The appellants&#039; exculpatory statements were also considered. The penalties were therefore set aside and the benefit of doubt was given to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>