<?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>2012 (11) TMI 570 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218555</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, withdrawing the revocation of the CHA Licence, subject to the forfeiture of a security deposit of Rs. 10,000. The decision was based on the finding that the import documents signed by the importers implied authority for CHA clearance, and no formal authorization letter was required. The Tribunal emphasized fairness and consistency in punishments across cases, referencing a similar precedent where a revocation was modified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 570 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218555</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, withdrawing the revocation of the CHA Licence, subject to the forfeiture of a security deposit of Rs. 10,000. The decision was based on the finding that the import documents signed by the importers implied authority for CHA clearance, and no formal authorization letter was required. The Tribunal emphasized fairness and consistency in punishments across cases, referencing a similar precedent where a revocation was modified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>