<?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 (3) TMI 824 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126272</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed as the steamer agent could not be held liable for confiscation or penalty when the goods were not subject to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the steamer agent were also overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:05:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 824 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126272</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed as the steamer agent could not be held liable for confiscation or penalty when the goods were not subject to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the steamer agent were also overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>