<?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>2014 (10) TMI 270 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252136</link>
    <description>Customs duty was upheld on the entire length of imported line pipes used within offshore designated areas because the Customs Act, as extended by the maritime zone framework and notifications, applied to the deemed Indian territory covering the installations and safety zones. The claimed transhipment was rejected since the movement was from one place within that extended territory to another, not to a foreign destination or in an export transaction. Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was set aside, as the dispute was primarily one of statutory interpretation and the duty issue, though sustained, did not justify a substantial penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 270 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252136</link>
      <description>Customs duty was upheld on the entire length of imported line pipes used within offshore designated areas because the Customs Act, as extended by the maritime zone framework and notifications, applied to the deemed Indian territory covering the installations and safety zones. The claimed transhipment was rejected since the movement was from one place within that extended territory to another, not to a foreign destination or in an export transaction. Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was set aside, as the dispute was primarily one of statutory interpretation and the duty issue, though sustained, did not justify a substantial penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>