<?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 (10) TMI 34 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237579</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition of Rs. 50,000 on the importer for attempting to import banned frozen peas under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant&#039;s claim of not authorizing the Customs House Agent (CHA) was dismissed as all necessary import documents were submitted, indicating involvement in the importation process. The Tribunal found the penalty justified, confirming the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision and dismissing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 08:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 34 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237579</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition of Rs. 50,000 on the importer for attempting to import banned frozen peas under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant&#039;s claim of not authorizing the Customs House Agent (CHA) was dismissed as all necessary import documents were submitted, indicating involvement in the importation process. The Tribunal found the penalty justified, confirming the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision and dismissing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>