<?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 749 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126436</link>
    <description>Imported H-beams treated as weldable structural steel under Notification No. 44/2000 were held liable to confiscation where the required BIS registration certificate was not produced, as the import conditions were not met and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 was attracted. Penalty under Section 112(a) was also sustainable on the same breach. However, the redemption fine and penalty were considered excessive on the facts and value of the goods, so both were reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:26:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 749 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126436</link>
      <description>Imported H-beams treated as weldable structural steel under Notification No. 44/2000 were held liable to confiscation where the required BIS registration certificate was not produced, as the import conditions were not met and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 was attracted. Penalty under Section 112(a) was also sustainable on the same breach. However, the redemption fine and penalty were considered excessive on the facts and value of the goods, so both were reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126436</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>