<?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>2015 (7) TMI 300 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261339</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to lack of evidence linking the CHA to tampering with the import license or diversion of goods. The decision was influenced by a previous case where penalties against CHAs were dropped for similar reasons. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence before penalizing CHAs and the importance of thorough investigations in such matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 06:45:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 300 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261339</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to lack of evidence linking the CHA to tampering with the import license or diversion of goods. The decision was influenced by a previous case where penalties against CHAs were dropped for similar reasons. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence before penalizing CHAs and the importance of thorough investigations in such matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>