<?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 (10) TMI 295 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333275</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the confiscation of excess foreign currency carried by a Non Resident Indian, but reduced the redemption fine imposed under the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act. The Court found the reduction justified based on relevant factors but noted an error in fixing the personal penalty higher than initially imposed. Consequently, the personal penalty was reduced from &amp;amp;8377; 1,20,000 to &amp;amp;8377; 50,000 while maintaining the redemption fine at &amp;amp;8377; 1,70,000. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders but directed the refund of any excess amount paid by the petitioner within two months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 295 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333275</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the confiscation of excess foreign currency carried by a Non Resident Indian, but reduced the redemption fine imposed under the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act. The Court found the reduction justified based on relevant factors but noted an error in fixing the personal penalty higher than initially imposed. Consequently, the personal penalty was reduced from &amp;amp;8377; 1,20,000 to &amp;amp;8377; 50,000 while maintaining the redemption fine at &amp;amp;8377; 1,70,000. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders but directed the refund of any excess amount paid by the petitioner within two months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>