<?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 (12) TMI 1052 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254709</link>
    <description>Non-fulfilment of the conditions of Notification No. 80/95-Customs and the export obligation under an import licence can still attract confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, even if duty and interest have been paid, where the governing policy preserves independent customs action notwithstanding regularisation. At the same time, subsequent redemption and export-obligation discharge documents may be relevant to assess whether the default was bona fide and whether confiscation and penalty should be sustained on the facts. The matter was therefore considered fit for fresh examination on remand, while the view that payment of duty and interest alone barred penalty was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1052 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254709</link>
      <description>Non-fulfilment of the conditions of Notification No. 80/95-Customs and the export obligation under an import licence can still attract confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, even if duty and interest have been paid, where the governing policy preserves independent customs action notwithstanding regularisation. At the same time, subsequent redemption and export-obligation discharge documents may be relevant to assess whether the default was bona fide and whether confiscation and penalty should be sustained on the facts. The matter was therefore considered fit for fresh examination on remand, while the view that payment of duty and interest alone barred penalty was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>