<?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 (10) TMI 494 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265219</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) in an appeal challenging the reduction of penalty under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no fault on the part of the CHA, noting their reliance on the exporter&#039;s instructions and the exporter&#039;s admission to mis-declaration. The CHA was absolved of aiding and abetting in the mis-declaration, with the Tribunal emphasizing that the CHA&#039;s role is limited to document submission without verifying contents. The appeal was allowed, and the Revenue&#039;s cross objection was dismissed, entitling the appellant to consequential benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:29:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 494 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265219</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) in an appeal challenging the reduction of penalty under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no fault on the part of the CHA, noting their reliance on the exporter&#039;s instructions and the exporter&#039;s admission to mis-declaration. The CHA was absolved of aiding and abetting in the mis-declaration, with the Tribunal emphasizing that the CHA&#039;s role is limited to document submission without verifying contents. The appeal was allowed, and the Revenue&#039;s cross objection was dismissed, entitling the appellant to consequential benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>