<?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 738 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327757</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellants to relinquish the goods as they were found unsuitable for re-export, despite penalties paid. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for negligence in handling the goods and auctioning some without the appellants&#039; knowledge. It was concluded that the appellants had fulfilled their obligations under the Customs Act 1962, and therefore, they were permitted to relinquish the goods. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 21:54:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 738 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327757</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellants to relinquish the goods as they were found unsuitable for re-export, despite penalties paid. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for negligence in handling the goods and auctioning some without the appellants&#039; knowledge. It was concluded that the appellants had fulfilled their obligations under the Customs Act 1962, and therefore, they were permitted to relinquish the goods. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>