<?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>2017 (1) TMI 587 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337507</link>
    <description>The penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act for alleged improper exportation of goods was set aside. The appellant successfully argued that the goods were imported and re-exported on a no-cost basis, meeting the exemption under Regulation 4(g) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulation 2000. As there was no contravention of export provisions, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 587 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337507</link>
      <description>The penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act for alleged improper exportation of goods was set aside. The appellant successfully argued that the goods were imported and re-exported on a no-cost basis, meeting the exemption under Regulation 4(g) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulation 2000. As there was no contravention of export provisions, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>