<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1213 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186521</link>
    <description>A bona fide transferee of a DFIA licence was held entitled to exemption under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus where the licence, as issued and transferred, did not carry the disputed restrictive conditions on its face and had not been cancelled or rectified before customs clearance. On those facts, duty demand, confiscation and importer penalties were unsustainable because there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the transferee and customs had cleared the goods after verifying the licence. Penalty on the clearing agent also failed, as it had only filed the import documents and no false statement or false document was attributable to it. The Revenue&#039;s plea for enhancement of penalty likewise failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1213 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186521</link>
      <description>A bona fide transferee of a DFIA licence was held entitled to exemption under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus where the licence, as issued and transferred, did not carry the disputed restrictive conditions on its face and had not been cancelled or rectified before customs clearance. On those facts, duty demand, confiscation and importer penalties were unsustainable because there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the transferee and customs had cleared the goods after verifying the licence. Penalty on the clearing agent also failed, as it had only filed the import documents and no false statement or false document was attributable to it. The Revenue&#039;s plea for enhancement of penalty likewise failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>