<?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>2016 (5) TMI 553 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327572</link>
    <description>Imported tranexamic acid was treated as a licensable drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics regime, so import without the required Form 10 licence rendered the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal also treated the attempt to project a different entity as importer, despite bank trail and surrounding conduct showing the appellant concern as the real importer, as a fraudulent proxy arrangement that did not avoid Customs scrutiny. On that basis, absolute confiscation was upheld. The Tribunal further sustained redemption fine and penalties against the connected persons, holding that their knowing participation in the unlawful import justified penal consequences notwithstanding later claims of leniency or formal documentation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 553 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327572</link>
      <description>Imported tranexamic acid was treated as a licensable drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics regime, so import without the required Form 10 licence rendered the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal also treated the attempt to project a different entity as importer, despite bank trail and surrounding conduct showing the appellant concern as the real importer, as a fraudulent proxy arrangement that did not avoid Customs scrutiny. On that basis, absolute confiscation was upheld. The Tribunal further sustained redemption fine and penalties against the connected persons, holding that their knowing participation in the unlawful import justified penal consequences notwithstanding later claims of leniency or formal documentation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>