<?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>2013 (4) TMI 32 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221836</link>
    <description>The bench declared the adjudication order as non-est, settling the case involving undervaluation and misclassification of imported goods. The applicant paid the demanded customs duties, interest, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on individuals involved. Immunity from prosecution was granted under the Customs Act, with the order emphasizing its voidance in case of fraud or misrepresentation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 32 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221836</link>
      <description>The bench declared the adjudication order as non-est, settling the case involving undervaluation and misclassification of imported goods. The applicant paid the demanded customs duties, interest, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on individuals involved. Immunity from prosecution was granted under the Customs Act, with the order emphasizing its voidance in case of fraud or misrepresentation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>