<?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 (10) TMI 34 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2845</link>
    <description>Mere use of plywood to cover contraband in a bona fide consignment did not amount to concealment for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decisive factor was the absence of substantial evidence linking the transporter to the contraband goods, and the statutory requirement of concealment was therefore not met. On that basis, the confiscation of the plywood was set aside and relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 34 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2845</link>
      <description>Mere use of plywood to cover contraband in a bona fide consignment did not amount to concealment for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decisive factor was the absence of substantial evidence linking the transporter to the contraband goods, and the statutory requirement of concealment was therefore not met. On that basis, the confiscation of the plywood was set aside and relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>