<?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>2007 (9) TMI 69 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2629</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for assisting in selling raw silk imported duty-free, as there was no evidence to prove the appellant&#039;s knowledge that the goods were being sold in contravention of regulations. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement of establishing the accused&#039;s awareness of the illegal nature of the transaction to impose penalties under Section 112, highlighting the importance of proving culpable knowledge or belief in customs violations. The lack of evidence regarding the appellant&#039;s knowledge of the export obligation status led to the appeal being allowed and the penalty being revoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 69 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2629</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for assisting in selling raw silk imported duty-free, as there was no evidence to prove the appellant&#039;s knowledge that the goods were being sold in contravention of regulations. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement of establishing the accused&#039;s awareness of the illegal nature of the transaction to impose penalties under Section 112, highlighting the importance of proving culpable knowledge or belief in customs violations. The lack of evidence regarding the appellant&#039;s knowledge of the export obligation status led to the appeal being allowed and the penalty being revoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>