<?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 657 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184788</link>
    <description>After payment of the duty component, further insistence on redemption fine and penalty was not warranted. The order records that duty had already been discharged and, on that basis, declined to sustain additional monetary consequences. The operative legal point is that once the duty element is paid, the basis for insisting on redemption fine and penalty fell away on the facts recorded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:51:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 657 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184788</link>
      <description>After payment of the duty component, further insistence on redemption fine and penalty was not warranted. The order records that duty had already been discharged and, on that basis, declined to sustain additional monetary consequences. The operative legal point is that once the duty element is paid, the basis for insisting on redemption fine and penalty fell away on the facts recorded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>