<?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 (7) TMI 1044 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128133</link>
    <description>Confiscation of non-notified goods cannot be sustained unless the Revenue proves that the goods were smuggled into India. Where goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden does not shift to the claimant, and the department must establish smuggling through evidence. On the record, no material showed that the goods had been smuggled, so confiscation failed and the order setting it aside was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:01:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1044 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128133</link>
      <description>Confiscation of non-notified goods cannot be sustained unless the Revenue proves that the goods were smuggled into India. Where goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden does not shift to the claimant, and the department must establish smuggling through evidence. On the record, no material showed that the goods had been smuggled, so confiscation failed and the order setting it aside was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>