<?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>2006 (11) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2718</link>
    <description>Fraudulent use of forged Bank Realization Certificates to obtain DEPB scrips was treated as a contravention attracting confiscation and penalty, because the exporter had not complied with export declaration and foreign exchange realisation requirements. The prohibition under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, read with the relevant notification, was treated as a prohibition deemed to be imposed under the Customs Act, and the use of false documents also attracted the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules. The penalty on the exporting firm was upheld. The separate personal penalty on the proprietor was set aside, while his liability for the firm&#039;s penalty as erstwhile partner was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2718</link>
      <description>Fraudulent use of forged Bank Realization Certificates to obtain DEPB scrips was treated as a contravention attracting confiscation and penalty, because the exporter had not complied with export declaration and foreign exchange realisation requirements. The prohibition under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, read with the relevant notification, was treated as a prohibition deemed to be imposed under the Customs Act, and the use of false documents also attracted the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules. The penalty on the exporting firm was upheld. The separate personal penalty on the proprietor was set aside, while his liability for the firm&#039;s penalty as erstwhile partner was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>