<?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 (8) TMI 579 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236287</link>
    <description>Goods not notified under section 123 of the Customs Act could not be absolutely confiscated, and the deleted Chapter IVA provisions for notified goods could not be relied on to support such confiscation. The confiscation order was therefore unsustainable, and the direction to return the goods was upheld. As the goods had already been sold, the sale proceeds were required to be refunded to the claimant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:52:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 579 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236287</link>
      <description>Goods not notified under section 123 of the Customs Act could not be absolutely confiscated, and the deleted Chapter IVA provisions for notified goods could not be relied on to support such confiscation. The confiscation order was therefore unsustainable, and the direction to return the goods was upheld. As the goods had already been sold, the sale proceeds were required to be refunded to the claimant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>