<?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>2011 (8) TMI 165 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205646</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of adulterated goods under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but reduced the redemption fine to Rs.3.5 lakh and set aside the penalty imposition of Rs.3 lakh. The importer&#039;s reliance on a foreign supplier&#039;s certificate and immediate re-export actions, coupled with the absence of malafide intent, led to the reduction in penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 165 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205646</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of adulterated goods under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but reduced the redemption fine to Rs.3.5 lakh and set aside the penalty imposition of Rs.3 lakh. The importer&#039;s reliance on a foreign supplier&#039;s certificate and immediate re-export actions, coupled with the absence of malafide intent, led to the reduction in penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>