<?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>2010 (1) TMI 994 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152536</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of electronic goods valued at approximately Rs. 11 lakhs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to evidence of smuggling activities by the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, was also imposed. The fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced to Rs. 3,00,000. The appeal was partly allowed, with the penalty upheld and the fine amount reduced, considering the circumstances and evidence presented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:06:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 994 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152536</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of electronic goods valued at approximately Rs. 11 lakhs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to evidence of smuggling activities by the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, was also imposed. The fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced to Rs. 3,00,000. The appeal was partly allowed, with the penalty upheld and the fine amount reduced, considering the circumstances and evidence presented.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>