<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1001 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170440</link>
    <description>The Commissioner found goods liable for confiscation but did not issue a confiscation order as they had been exported. Penalties were imposed. The appeal focused on the decision not to impose a redemption fine. The impugned goods were confirmed to have been exported and were not available for confiscation. Since the goods were out of the country, the option of redemption was not applicable. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2015 18:05:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1001 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170440</link>
      <description>The Commissioner found goods liable for confiscation but did not issue a confiscation order as they had been exported. Penalties were imposed. The appeal focused on the decision not to impose a redemption fine. The impugned goods were confirmed to have been exported and were not available for confiscation. Since the goods were out of the country, the option of redemption was not applicable. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>