<?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 (8) TMI 1029 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153653</link>
    <description>Filing a DEPB shipping bill without declaring that the exporter was a 100% Export Oriented Unit was treated as a contravention of the statutory declaration requirements under the Customs and foreign trade framework. The absence of admissible DEPB credit was not in dispute; the only question was penalty. Disclosure in the AR-4 form was held insufficient to cure the breach, so penalty was found leviable. On the facts and circumstances, however, the penalty was moderated and reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:07:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1029 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153653</link>
      <description>Filing a DEPB shipping bill without declaring that the exporter was a 100% Export Oriented Unit was treated as a contravention of the statutory declaration requirements under the Customs and foreign trade framework. The absence of admissible DEPB credit was not in dispute; the only question was penalty. Disclosure in the AR-4 form was held insufficient to cure the breach, so penalty was found leviable. On the facts and circumstances, however, the penalty was moderated and reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>