<?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 (7) TMI 353 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202085</link>
    <description>Imported vehicles under the Transfer of Residence scheme may not attract separate penalties on subsequent transferees where the original importer has already suffered confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for breach of the import condition. The commentary notes that, in such circumstances, the post-import no-sale restriction is not required to be separately enforced to sustain action under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. It also states that the earlier violation of the possession condition under the relevant import licensing note was treated as decisive, and the subsequent proceedings against the persons dealing with the car were not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 353 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202085</link>
      <description>Imported vehicles under the Transfer of Residence scheme may not attract separate penalties on subsequent transferees where the original importer has already suffered confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for breach of the import condition. The commentary notes that, in such circumstances, the post-import no-sale restriction is not required to be separately enforced to sustain action under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. It also states that the earlier violation of the possession condition under the relevant import licensing note was treated as decisive, and the subsequent proceedings against the persons dealing with the car were not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>