<?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 1061 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153857</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed on M/s. Binny Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, for illegal removal of garlic, finding that only lower-level employees were involved without senior management&#039;s knowledge. The duty on the excess garlic had been paid at import clearance, leading to the appropriation of the duty payable. The Tribunal supported the decision not to terminate M/s. Binny Ltd.&#039;s appointment as Custodian and to maintain the CFS area as a Customs area, as senior management was not implicated. The penalty was deemed appropriate considering the limited involvement of lower-level employees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:43:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1061 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153857</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed on M/s. Binny Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, for illegal removal of garlic, finding that only lower-level employees were involved without senior management&#039;s knowledge. The duty on the excess garlic had been paid at import clearance, leading to the appropriation of the duty payable. The Tribunal supported the decision not to terminate M/s. Binny Ltd.&#039;s appointment as Custodian and to maintain the CFS area as a Customs area, as senior management was not implicated. The penalty was deemed appropriate considering the limited involvement of lower-level employees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>